IMAGE  EVALUATION 
TEST  TARGET  (MT-3) 


1.0     ^^  Ui 

itt  jm  12.2 

S  114    "^ 


I.I 


Z  1^    12.0 


Photographic 

Sdmces 

CorporatiQii 


V 


33  WMt  MAW  STMIT 

1MUm,N.V.  I4>i0 

(7U)373<4S03 


CIHM/ICMH 

Microfiche 

Series. 


CIHIVI/iCIVIH 
Collection  de 
microfiches. 


Canadian  Instituta  for  Historical  Microraproductions  /  Institut  Canadian  da  microraproductions  historiquas 


Technical  and  Bibliographic  Notes/Note*  techniques  et  bibliographiques 


T 
to 


The  Institute  has  attempted  to  obtain  the  best 
original  copy  available  for  filming.  Features  of  this 
copy  which  may  be  bibliographically  unique, 
which  may  alter  any  of  the  images  in  the 
reproduction,  or  which  may  significantly  change 
the  usual  method  of  filming,  are  checked  below. 


D 


D 
D 


D 


Coloured  covers/ 
Couverture  de  couleur 


I     I   Covers  damaged/ 


Couverture  endommag6e 

Covers  restored  and/or  laminated/ 
Couverture  restaurte  et/ou  pellicula 

Cover  title  missing/ 

Le  titre  de  couvsrture  manque 

Coloured  maps/ 

Cartes  gtographique^  en  couleur 

Coloured  ink  (i.e.  other  than  blue  or  black)/ 
Encre  de  couleur  (i.e.  autre  que  bleue  ou  rioire) 

Coloured  plates  and/or  illustrations/ 
Planches  et/ou  illustrations  en  couleur 


D 


Bound  with  other  materiel/ 
ReilA  avec  d'autres  documents 

Tight  binding  may  cause  shadows  or  distortion 
along  Interior  margin/ 

La  re  liure  serrAe  peut  causer  de  I'ombre  ou  de  la 
distortion  le  long  de  la  marge  inttrieure 

Blank  leaves  added  during  restoration  may 
appear  within  the  text.  Whenever  possible,  these 
have  been  omitted  from  filming/ 
II  se  peut  que  certalnes  pagee  blenches  sjoutAee 
lore  d'une  restauration  apparalssent  dans  le  texte, 
male,  lorsque  cela  Atalt  possible,  ces  pages  n'ont 
pas  4tA  filmtes. 

Additional  comments:/ 
Commentairee  supplAmentaires: 


L'Institut  a  microfilm^  le  meilleur  exemplaire 
qu'il  iui  a  6tA  possible  de  se  procurer.  Les  details 
de  cet  exemplaire  qui  sont  peut-Atre  uniques  du 
point  de  vue  bibliographique,  qui  peuvent  modifier 
une  image  reproduite,  ou  qui  peuvent  exiger  une 
modification  dans  la  mAthode  normale  de  fllmage 
sont  Indiqute  ci-dessous. 


D 
D 
D 

D 
D 
D 
D 


Coloured  pages/ 
Pages  de  couleur 

Pages  damaged/ 
Pages  endommagAes 

Pages  restored  and/or  laminated/ 
Pages  restaurtes  «it/ou  pellicultee 

Pages  discoloured,  stained  or  foxed/ 
Pages  dicolortes,  tacheties  ou  piqutes 

Pages  detached/ 
Pages  dAtachtes 

Showthrough/ 
Transparence 

Quality  of  print  varies/ 
Quality  InAgale  de  I'impresslcn 

Includes  supplementary  material/ 
Comprend  du  matAriei  suppKmentaire 

Only  edition  available/ 
Seule  Adhlon  disponible 

Pages  wholly  or  partially  obscured  by  errata 
slips,  tissues,  etc.,  have  been  refllmed  to 
ensure  the  best  possible  image/ 
Les  pages  totalement  ou  partiellement 
obscurcles  par  un  feulllet  d'errata,  une  pelure, 
etc.,  ont  4t*  fllmtes  A  nouveau  de  fe^on  h 
obtenir  la  mellleure  image  possible. 


T 

P 
o 
fi 


O 

b< 
tl^ 
si 
oi 
fii 
si 

OI 


Tl 
s^ 
Tl 
w 

M 
di 
er 
be 
ric 
re( 


Thie  Item  le  filmed  at  the  reduction  ratio  checked  below/ 

Ce  document  est  film*  au  taux  de  rMuctlon  IndlquA  ci-dessous. 


10X 

14X 

18X 

22X 

26X 

30X 

r 

s/ 

H 

12X 


1SX 


20X 


a4x 


2KK 


32X 


The  copy  filmed  here  has  been  reproduced  thanks 
to  the  generosity  of: 

Law  Library 
CiuMii's  Univanity 

The  images  appearing  here  are  the  best  quality 
possible  considering  the  condition  and  legibility 
of  the  original  copy  and  in  keeping  with  the 
filming  contract  specifications. 


Original  copies  in  printed  paper  covers  are  filmed 
beginning  with  the  front  cover  and  ending  on 
the  last  page  with  a  printed  or  illustrated  impres- 
sion, or  the  back  cover  when  appropriate.  All 
oth«r  original  copies  are  filmed  beginning  on  the 
first  page  with  a  printed  or  illustrated  impres- 
sion, and  ending  on  the  last  page  with  i  printed 
or  illustrated  impression. 


The  last  recorded  frame  on  each  microfiche 
shall  contain  the  symbol  — ^>  (meaning  "CON- 
TINUED"), or  the  symbol  y  (meaning  "END"), 
whichever  applies. 

IMaps,  plates,  charts,  etc.,  may  be  filmed  at 
different  reduction  ratios.  Those  too  large  to  be 
entirely  included  in  one  exposure  are  filmed 
beginning  in  the  upper  left  hand  corner,  left  to 
right  and  top  to  bottom,  as  many  frames  as 
required.  The  following  diagrams  illustrate  the 
method: 


L'exemplaire  film*  fut  reproduit  grice  k  la 
gAnArositA  da: 

Law  Library 
Quaan'i  Univartity 

Les  imagdii  suivantes  ont  «t«  reproduites  avec  le 
plus  grand  soin,  compte  tenu  de  le  condition  et 
de  la  nettet*  de  rexemplaire  film*,  et  en 
conformity  avec  les  conditions  du  contrat  de 
filmage. 

Les  exemplaires  originaux  dont  la  couverture  en 
papier  est  ImprimAe  sont  filmAs  en  commenpant 
par  le  premier  plat  et  en  terminent  soit  par  la 
dernlAre  page  qui  comporte  une  empreinte 
d'impression  ou  d'illustration,  soit  par  le  second 
plat,  salon  le  cas.  Tous  les  sutres  exemplaires 
originaux  sont  fiimAs  en  commengant  par  la 
premlAre  page  qui  comporte  une  empreinte 
d'impression  ou  d'illustration  et  en  terminent  par 
la  dernlAre  pege  qui  comporte  une  telle 
empreinte. 

Un  des  symboles  suivants  appereftra  sur  la 
derniAre  imege  de  cheque  microfiche,  selon  le 
cas:  le  symbols  — ^  signifie  "A  SUIVRE",  le 
symbols  V  signifie  "FIN". 

Les  csrtes,  planches,  tableeux,  etc.,  peuvent  Atre 
filmte  *  des  taux  de  rMuction  diff«rents. 
Lorsque  le  document  est  trop  grand  pour  Atre 
reproduit  en  un  seul  clich«,  11  est  film*  *  partir 
de  I'engle  sup*rieur  geuche,  de  geuche  i  droite, 
et  de  heut  en  bas,  en  prenant  le  nombre 
d'images  n*cessaire.  Les  diagrammes  suivants 
illustrent  la  m*thode. 


1 

2 

3 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

QUEEN'S 

UNIVERSITY 
LAW 

LIBRARY 


KINGSTON,    ONTARIO 
CANADA 


r-irjfi' 


POLITICAL  CONTROVERSIES 


^BETWEEN^ 


t:l]>2>:- :  l^nikdS;- :  |#iaks '>^ 


k 


\\  •* 


iV 


-AND- 


G  R  E  AT    B  R  I  TA  I  N 


-nv 


NICHOLAS   BAYLIES 


DCS  MOINES,  IOWA: 

BREWSTER  k  CO..  PRINTERS. 

18H-.. 


*        t 


.i- 


*  |W  9*»^^K^^ifm^Wffmmmi^mm9mmi^^ 


0Xi^2'2.G7Ba 


COPVniSHT    SECURED. 
IS8B. 


\(;-^73r 


6.88 


I 


II 


■■ 


PREFACE. 


The  writer  has  aimed  in  the  following  chapters, 
to  give  a  connected  and  brief  narrative  of  those  po- 
litical questions  between  the  United  States  and 
Great  Britain,  which,  in  former  days,  profoundly  in- 
terested and  agitated  the  American  people.  Many 
of  the  subjects  to  which  those  questions  related, 
have  now  ceased  to  disturb  the  diplomatic  relations 
of  the  two  countries,  but  the  statesmanship,  the  pat- 
riotism and  the  ability  which  they  evoked,  should 
not  be  permitted  to  fade  entirely  from  the  public 
mind.  Of  these,  it  is  not  improbable  that  many 
just  entering  upon  the  duties  of  American  citizen- 
ship, have  only  vague  and  indistinct  ideas.  The 
pressin'g  and  exciting  events  of  the  day,  naturally 
pre-occupy  attention,  greatly  to  the  exclusion  of 
those  which  have  long  since  transpired;  yet,  a 
knowledge  cf  the  zeal,  the  foresight  and  the  ability 
displayed,  by  those  occupying  responsible  posts  of 
honor,  in  guarding  and  maintaining  the  rights  and 
interests  of  our  countrv,  cannot  fail  to  be  in  the 
highest  degree  suggestive  and  gratifying.  While 
endeavoring  to  avoid  prolixity,  the  writer  has  at- 
tempted to  dwell  sufficiently  on  the  views  of  public 
men  and  the  drift  of  public  opinion  in  each  country, 
to  indicate  the  motives  of  action.  It  was  foreign 
to  his  purpose  to  greatly  enlarge  upon  the  discus- 
sions and  agitation  which  those  views  expressed. 
Had  he  ventured  upon  this,  it  can  readily  be  seen 
what  material  existed  for  a  very  extended,  if  not  a 
voluminous  work.  He  has  deemed  it  unnecessary 
to  incumber  his  pages  with  foot  notes  or  references. 


; 


PR  E FACE 


Any  one  who  has  a  desire  to- investigate  facts,  or  to 
go  more  into  details,  can  fully  satisfy  himself,  by 
consulting'  tlie  American  state  papers,  diplomatic 
correspondence,  Histories,  and'the  biographies  ofour 
eminent  men.  He  concludes  with  the  earnest  wish 
that  those  upon  the  threshold  of  political  life  may 
fblly  appreciate  their  obligations  to  the  past,  as.  well 
as  tlie  present  and  the  future,  and' be  ever  ready  to 
sustain  the  right  and  oppose  the  wrong^. 


CHAPTER  I. 

COLONIAL     POLICY    OF    GREAT    BRITAIN   -TREATY    OK 
1 783  -DISAGREEMENT -COMMERCI AI ,      RELATIONS 
NEUTRALITY    JAY'S  TREATY  -ITJ.   SCOPE    AND    UN- 
POPULARITY. 


On  the  twenty- second  day  of  February,  seven- 
teen hundred  and  sixty-six,  the  Parliament  of  Great 
Hritian  declared  that  the  King  in  Parliament  had 
*'full  power  to  bind  the  colonies  and  people  of  Amer- 
ica in  all  cases  whatsoever." 

So  universal  was  Bntish  opinion  upon  that  point, 
that  one  hundred  and  twenty-five  votes  were  given 
in  favor  of  that  declaration  in  the  House  of  Lords, 
and  only  five  against  it,  and  less  than  ten  votes  were 
against  it  in  the  House  of  Commons. 

This  harmony  of  opinion  had  already  been  indi- 
cated by  the  passage  of  the  Stamp  Act  by  the  House 
of  Commons,  with  less  resistance,  says  one,  than  to 
a  common  turnpike  bill,  and  by  the  House  of  Lords 
without  a  dissenting  vote;  one  of  the  Ministry  hav- 
ing declared,  "We  have  the  power  to  tax  them  and 
we  will  tax  them."  Public  opinion  in  America  was 
equally  united  in  hostility  to  the  power  claimed  bj* 
the  British  Parliament,  combined  with  a  resolute 
l)urpose   to  resist  its  enforcement    at    all    hazards. 

This  hostile  attitude  upon  a  question  of  power 
and  justice  finally  involved  both  parties  in  a  war, 
which  for  many  years,  was  carried  on  with  mutual 
zeal  and  courage.  National  wealth,  national  pride,  an 
obstinate  King  and  a  desire  to  make  others  tributary 
to  her  interests,  prompted  England  to  make  extra- 


Pnl.l  riCA  I.    «  ON  ri<()  V  K  kS  I  cs 


ordinar)  efforts  for  the  subjugation  of  tliose  who 
questioned  her  justice  and  strength.  With  the  Col- 
onists, a  contest  commenced  with  remonntrance  and 
entreaty,  became  A  struggle  for  national  existence. 
The  vicissitudes  of  war  finally  proved  disastrous  to 
British  pretentsions;  the  capture  of  Bur.  oync  an«l 
Cornwallis  with  their  well  equipped  armies  dispelled 
the  idea  of  British  invincibility  and  colonial  weak- 
ness, and  the  British  people,  convinced  at  last  thai 
the  United  States,  aided  by  France,  could  not 
be  conquered;  that  the  "ontinuance  of  the  war  was 
rapidly  increasing  their  own  burdens;  and  that,  ul- 
timately, the  recognition  of  American  independence 
was  inevitable,  became  anxious  for  the  restoration 
of  peace.  With  this  view,  negotiations  were  opened 
and  a  provisional  treaty  of  peace  was  concluded  on 
the  thirtieth  day  of  November,  1782,  to  become  de- 
finitive on  the  conclusion  of  a  treaty  of  peace  be- 
tween France  and  England.  This  having  been  ef- 
fected, the  plenipotentiaries  of  the  United  States 
and  Great  Britain  on  the  third  day  of  September, 
[783,  converted  the  provisional  into  a  definitive 
treaty. 

By  the  terms  of  the  treaty,  the  independence  of 
the  United  States  was  acknowledged,  their  bounda- 
ries so  fixed  as  to  include  the  country  on  both 
sides  of  the  Ohio  river,  east  of  the  Mississippi  and 
south  of  the  Great  Lakes,  and  an  unlimited  right  of 
fishery  upon  the  banks  of  Newfoundland  was  con- 
ceded. It  was  stipulated  that  congress  should  ear- 
nestly recommend  to  the  legislatures  of  the  respec- 
tive states  to  provide  for  the  restitution  of  the  con- 
fiscated estates  of  the  loyalists;    that  the  creditors 


UN  IT  HI)     SI'ATKS      <;kb:AI      HKITAIN. 


on  either  side  should  not  be  lawfully  impeded  in  the 
rtnai  recovery  of  existing  bona  fide  debts;  that  all 
prisoners  should  be  discharged;  and  that  the  Kng- 
lish  possessions  within  the  prescribed  limits  should 
be  evacuated,  "with  all  convenient  speed,"  without 
the  destruction  or  deportation  of  negroes  or  cither 
American  property.  The  treaty  seems  to  have  been 
generally  satisfactory  to  Americans.  With  regard 
to  the  reception  of  the  provisional  articles  by  con- 
gress in  the  following  March,  Mr.  Madison  said. 
"The  terms  granted  appeared  to  congress,  on  the 
whole,  extremely  liberal.  It  was  observed  by  sev- 
eral, however,  that  the  stipulation  obliging  congress 
to  recommend  to  the  states  a  restitution  of  confis- 
cated property,  although  it  could  scarcely  be  under- 
stood that  the  states  would  comply,  had  the  appear- 
ance of  sacrificing  the  dignity  of  congress  to  the  pride 
of  the  British  king." 

On  the  25th  day  of  March,  1783,  the  secretary  of 
foreign  affairs  wrote  to  the  American  Commissioners, 
that  "The  provisional  treaty  had  met  with  the  warm- 
est approval  of  Congress;  was  generally  favorably  re- 
ceived by  the  people;  that  the  stipulations  with  re- 
gard to  independence,  to  boundaries,  the  fisheries  and 
the  recovery  of  debts,  were  entirely  satisfactory;  and 
that  although  the  article  with  regard  to  the  confiscat- 
ed estates  would  not  probably  be  acceded  to  by  the 
separate  States,  on  whose  free  will  its  execution  was 
expressly  dependent,  yet  in  agreeing  to  it,  under  the 
circumstances  and  with  the  declaration  by  which  they 
had  accompanied  it.  they  had  committed  no  fault,  but 
the  folly  was  that  of  the  British  Commissioners  in 
asking  and  accepting  such  a  stipulation." 


POLITICAL    CONTROVERSIES 


The  treaty  met  with  quite  a  different  reception  in 
the  British  Parliament,  and  resolutions  were  passed 
by  a  majority  of  sixteen  votes  in  the  House  of  Com- 
mons, which  condemned  it  as  conceding  more  to  the 
adversaries  of  Great  Britain,  than  they  had  a  right  to 
expect.  The  objections  were  directed  more  par- 
ticularly against  the  provisions  with  regard  to  the 
boundaries,  the  fisheries  and  the  inadequate  relief  in 
behalf  of  the  loyalists.  In  a  debate  on  the  subject 
in  the  House  of  Lords  on  the  17th  of  February,  1783. 
Lord  Shelburne,  in  repelling  the  attack  made  upon 
the  treaty  on  account  of  the  loyalists,  disclosed  the 
humiliating  extremity  to  which  the  country  was  re- 
duced and  which  justified  the  action  of  the  Ministry, 
when  he  said,  '*  If  better  terms  could  be  had,  think 
you,  my  Lord,  that  I  would  not  have  embraced  them.' 
You  all  know  my  creed.  You  all  know  my  steadiness. 
If  it  were  possible  to  put  aside  the  bitter  cup  the  ad- 
versaries of  the  country  presented  to  me,  you  know 
I  would  have  clone  it;  but  you  called  for  peace.  I 
had  but  the  alternative,  either  to  accept  the  terms 
(said  Congress)  of  our  recommendation  to  the  States 
in  favor  of  the  loyalists  or  continue  the  war.  It  was  in 
our  power  to  do  no  more  than  recommend.  Is  there 
any  man  hears  me  who  will  clap  his  hand  on  his  heart 
and  step  forward  and  say  I  ought  to  have  broken  off 
the  treaty.'  If  there  be,  I  am  sure  he  neither  knows  the 
state  ofthe  country,  nor  yet  has  he  paid  any  attention 
to  the  wishes  of  it.  Without  one  drop  of  blood  spilt 
and  without  one-fifth  of  the  expense  of  one  year's 
campaign,  happiness  and  ease  can  be  given  the  loy- 
alists in  as  ample  a  measure  as  these  blessings  were 
ever  given  in  their  enjoyment:  therefore,  let  th«j 
outcry  cease  on  this  head." 


UNITED    STATES   -GREAT    BRITAIN. 


The  ratification  of  the  treaty  concluded  military 
operations,  but  was  soon  followed  by  mutual  com- 
plaints of  its  infraction.  The  British  Cabinet  placed 
a  construction  upon  the  article  with  regard  to  the 
deportation  of  negroes,  which  was  generally  con- 
demned by  the  Americans,  and  so  confident  were  the 
latter  of  the  prompt  surrender  of  the  western  posts 
as  stipulated,  that  application  was  made  to  the  Gov- 
ernor of  Canada  for  this  purpose,  on  the  third  of  Au- 
gust, 1783,  and  in  the  Spring  of  1784  General  Knox 
was  directed  to  ascertain,  from  the  Commander-in- 
chief  of  the  British  forces  in  Canada,  the  precise  time 
when  those  posts  could  be  taken  possession  of  by  the 
troops  of  the  United  States.  Near  the  expiration 
of  the  yf;ar  the  government  of  the  United  States  was 
apprised  that  they  would  not  be  abandoned.  The 
treaty  designated  the  river  St.  Croix,  from  its  source 
to  Passamaquaddy  bay,  as  the  north  east  boundary 
of  the  United  States,  but  more  than  one  river  dis- 
charged into  that  bay,  and  the  two  governments  dis- 
agreed as  to  the  one  intended. 

The  British  government,  on  its  part,  complained 
especially  of  those  articles  which  related  to  the  pay- 
ment of  debts  and  to  confiscated  property.  As  to 
the  latter,  Congress  had  immediately,  upon  the  rati- 
fication of  the  definiC  've  treaty,  passed  a  resolution 
containing  a  recommendation  in  the  words  of  the 
treaty,  and  had  transmitted  it  to  the  respective  States, 
and  it  was  earnestly  insiste'd  that  there  had  been  no 
infraction  as  to  the  debts.  With  the  lapse  of  time, 
che  failure  to  surrender  the  posts  and  to  provide  for 
the  payment  of  the  deported  negroes,  greatly  increas- 
ed the  irritation  on  the  part  of  the  Americans,  who 


8 


POLITICAL    CONTROVERSIES 


were  met  by  the  loud  and  incessant  complaints  of 
British  creditors.  To  obtain  a  complete  execution 
of  the  treaty,  Mr.  Adams  was  finally  sent  to  the  Court 
of  St.  James,  and  in  December,  1785,  he  presented  a 
memorial  containing  the  American  complaints  and 
urging  a  full  compliance  with  the  treaty.  The  British 
Ministry  admitted  that  the  seventh  article  of  the 
treaty  created  an  obligation  to  withdraw  the  British 
garrisons  from  every  post  within  the  United  States, 
but  insisted  that  the  fourth  article  created  an  obliga- 
tion equally  strong  to  remove  every  lawful  impedi- 
ment to  the  recovery  o{  bona  fide  debts,  that  the  en- 
i^agements  of  a  treaty  ought  to  be  equally  binding 
upon  the  contracting  parties  and  *'that  whenever 
America  should  manifest  a  real  determination  to  ful- 
fil her  part  of  the  treaty,  Great  Britian  would  not 
hesitate  to  prove  her  sincerity  to  co-operate  in  what- 
ever points  depended  upon  her  for  carrying  everx 
article  of  it  into  real  and  complete  effect. " 

When  no  precise  term  has  been  fixed  by  treatv 
for  the  execution  of  its  several  articles,  upon  the 
principles  of  international  law,  as  expounded  by  Vat- 
tel,  each  point  should  be  executed  as  soon  as  possi- 
ble, and  in  the  absence  of  an  express  stipulation, 
each  party  should  act  with  all  practicable  celerit) 
without  demanding  that  the  adverse  party  shoultl 
take  the  first  step.  Upon  these  principles,  without 
regard  to  tHe  express  words  of  the  treaty,  the  posts 
should  have  been  surrendered  without  delay;  and  as 
to  the  British  complaint  with  regard  to  the  debts, 
what  constituted  a  lawful  impediment  to  their  col- 
lection, was  subject  for  judicial  inquiry  although  at- 
tended with  embarrassment. 


UNITED    STATES  -GREAT    BRITAIN. 


It  was  insisted  by  the  United  States  that  under  the 
treaty  making  power,  the  stipulations  of  the  treaty 
b  *came  the  paramount  law  of  the  land;  that  the 
court  of  final  appeal  would  so  decide,  and  that,  con- 
sequently, adverse  legislation  upon  the  part  of  the 
States  was  null,  and  constituted  no  lawful  impedi- 
ment. State  legislation  had,  however,  in  some  in- 
stances interposed  obstructions  in  the  way  of  the 
prompt  and  immediate  collection  of  debts,  and  al- 
though such  obstructions  were  in  conflict  with  the 
national  law,  they  incensed  the  English  creditors, 
gave  a  pretext  for  complaint  and  evasions,  and  add- 
ed greatly  to  the  annoyance  of  the  American  gov- 
ernment. 

Of  all  the  States,  the  action  of  Virginia  was  the 
most  pronounced  upon  this  branch  of  the  treaty.  In 
I784,and  when  the  attempt  to  obtain  the  surrender  of 
the  western  posts  had  proven  abortive,  a  committee 
of  the  Virginia  House  of  delegates  reported  to  the 
House  that  the  seventh  article  of  the  treaty,  as  far 
as  related  to  the  detention  of  slaves  and  other  prop- 
erty of  the  citizens  of  the  Commonwealth  by  agents 
of  Great  Britain,  had  been  violated,  and  the  delegates 
of  the  State  in  congre  s  were  instructed  to  lay  the 
report  before  that  body,  asking  it  to  remonstrate  and 
demand  reparation  from  the  British  Government, 
with  the  followinij  additional  declaration:  '*  And 
that  the  said  delegates  be  instructed  to  inform  con- 
gress that  the  general  assembly  has  no  inclination 
to  interfere  with  the  power  of  making  treaties  with 
foreign  nations,  which  the  confederation  hath  wisely 
vested  in  congress,  but  it  is  conceived  that  a  just  re- 
gard for  the  national  honor  and  the  interests  of  the 


■J'P!i^ilc|>i;ii    •  .■^■■nvvffw^HVi^ipi^gpmpqipi 


m 


POLITICAL    CONTROVERSIES 


citizens  of  this  commonwealth,  obliges  the  assembly 
to  withhold  their  co-operation  in  the  complete  ful- 
fillment of  the  said  treaty,  until  the  success  of  the 
aforesaid  remonstrance  is  known,  or  congress  shall 
signify  their  sentiments  touching  the  premises." 
This  action  on  the  part  of  Virginia  was  the  founda- 
tion for  those  mutual  recriminations,  which,  for  a 
long  time,  embittered  the  relations  of  the  two  coun- 
tries, gave  rise  to  long  and  serious  embroilments, 
and  were  seized  upon  by  Great  Britain  in  the  course 
of  international  contention  as  an  excuse  for  not  car- 
rying the  treaty  into  full  effect.  Mr.  Madison  was  a 
member  of  the  assembly  and  was  greatly  dissatisfied 
with  its  course.  In  a  letter,  subsequently  written, 
he  said:  "Being  convinced  myself  that  nothing  can 
be  now  done  that  will  not  extremely  dishonor  us 
and  embarass  congress,  my  wish  is  that  the  report 
may  not  be  called  for  at  all.  In  the  course  of  the  de- 
bates, no  pains  were  spared  to  disparage  the  treaty 
by  insinuations  against  Congress,  the  eastern  states 
and  the  negotiators  of  the  treaty,  particularly  Mr. 
John  Adams." 

In  commenting  upon  the  reply  of  the  British 
minister  to  the  memorial  of  Mr.  Adams,  in  a  com- 
munication to  the  president,  Mr.  Jay,  the  American 
secretary  of  state,  gave  countenance  to  the  British 
view  of  the  case,  and  seems  to  have  differed  widely 
in  his  conclusions  from  those  advanced  subsequently, 
and  defended  by  his  successor,  Mr.  Jefferson.  "  Some 
of  the  facts,"  said  Mr.  Jay,  "  are  inaccurately  and 
improperly  colored;  but  it  is  too  true  that  the  treaty 
has  been  violated.  On  such  occasions,  I  think  it 
better  fairly  to  confess  errors,  than  to  attempt  to  de- 


UNITED    STATES  — GREAT    BRITAIN.        ii 


ceive  ourselves  and  others  by  fallacious  though 
plausible  palliations  and  excuses.  To  oppose  popu- 
lar prejudices,  to  censure  the  proceedings  and  ex- 
pose the  impropriety  of  states,  is  an  unpleasant  task, 
but  it  must  be  done." 

Congress  made  earnest  efforts  to  induce  the  sev- 
eral States  to  repeal  all  laws  which  seemed  to  militate 
against  the  treaty,  but  these  efforts  did  not  meet 
with  the  desired  success.  So  keenly  did  President 
Washington  feel  this  failure,  that  he  wrote  to  the 
secretary  of  state:  "What  a  misfortune  it  is,  that  the 
British  should  have  so  well  grounded  a  pretext  for 
their  palpable  infractions,  and  what  a  disgraceful 
part,  out  of  tho  choice  of  difficulties  before  us  are  we 
to  act."  Again  in  a  special  message  to  congress  on 
the  14th  of  February,  1791,  he  communicated  por- 
tions of  letters  from  British  ministers,  who,  he  says, 
"declare  without  scruple  that  they  do  not  meaii  to 
fulfill  what  remains  of  the  treaty  of  peace  to  be  ful- 
filled on  their  part,  (by  which  we  are  to  understand 
the  delivery  of  the  posts  and  the  payment  for  prop- 
erty carried  off)  till  performance  on  our  part,  and 
compensation  where  the  delay  has  rendered  the  per- 
formance impracticable."  The  letters  had  been  ad- 
dressed to  Mr.  Gouvernour  Morris,  who,  being  in 
Europe,  at  the  request  of  the  President,  had  ap- 
proached the  British  Cabinet  in  an  informal  way 
with  regard  to  a  permanent  adjustment  of  all  exist- 
ing difficulties. 

The  information  obtained,  convinced  Morris  that 
the  British  government,  considering  the  posts  as  es- 
sential to  their  monopoly  of  the  fur  trade,  would 
surrender  them  with  reluctance,  and  drew  from  him 


t$ 


rOLlTlCAl.    CONTROVERSIES 


the  opinion,  that  ''perhaps  there  never  was  a  mo- 
ment in  which  the  country  felt  herself  greater,  and 
consequently,  it  is  the  most  unfavorable  moment  to 
obtain  advantageous  terms  from  her  in  any  bargain." 

While  international  matters  were  in  this  unset- 
tled and  unsatisfactory  condition,  Mr.  Hammond 
arrived  in  the  United  States  as  minister  from  Great 
Britain,  and  Mr.  Jefferson,  the  American  secretary 
of  state,  delivered  a  paper  to  him  in  October,  1791, 
containing  specifications  of  the  breaches  of  the 
treaty  complained  of  by  his  government.  The  Brit- 
ish minister  replied  on  the  5th  of  March,  1792,  spec- 
ifying alleged  infractions  upon  the  opposite  side, 
among  them,  the  non-repeal  of  the  confiscation  laws 
by  the  states,  the  passage  in  some  instances,  of  new 
confiscation  laws,  and  the  prevention  by  the  interpo- 
sition of  state  laws  and  courts,  of  the  collection  of 
debts  due  to  British  creditors. 

After  a  thorough  examination  of  the  state  laws 
and  the  decisions  of  the  courts,  Jefferson  gave  an 
elaborate  reply  on  the  29th  of  May,  1792.  He  con- 
tended that  the  United  States  had  no  control  over 
'  the  state  jurisdictions  with  regard  to  confiscations, 
and  that  the  treaty  did  not  require  such  control — 
that  it  only  required  a  recommendation  of  a  certain 
line  of  action,  which  had  been  fully  given — that  the 
negotiators  and  the  British  ministry  and  parliament 
at  the  time  of  the  negotiation,  fully  understood  the 
purport  of  the  recommendation — that  it  was  "mat- 
ter not  of  obligation  or  coercion,  but  of  persuasion 
and  influence  merely."  Only  one  state,  he  said,  had 
refused  to  comply  with  the  congressional  recom- 
mendation altogether,  but  the  others  had  done  so  to 


UNITED    STATES  — GR^^AT    BRITAIN.        13 


a  greater  or  less  degree,  according  to  circumstances 
and  dispositions  in  which  the  events  of  the  war  had 
left  them."  He  asserted  that  the  British  command- 
ers in  withdrawing  from  America,  carried  away  a 
large  number  of  negroes  in  known  violation  of  the 
7th  article  of  the  treaty  on  the  fulfillment  of  which 
depended  the  means  of  paying  debts  to  a  certain 
extent. 

The  non  surrender  of  the  American  forts  "with 
all  convenient  speed,"  he  insisted  was  not  only  a 
violation  of  the  treaty,  but  that  the  official  informa- 
tion received  toward  the  close  of  1784,  that  no  or- 
ders had  been  issued  for  their  evacuation,  gave  rise 
to  the  inference  that  no  such  orders  had  ever  been 
given  or  intended;  that  this  had  cut  off  the  fur  trade, 
which,  before  the  war,  had  been  an  important  branch 
of  commerce  and  source  of  remittance  for  the  pay- 
ment of  British  creditors,  and  from  friendly  inter- 
course with  the  north-western  Indians,  with  whom, 
as  a  conseqence,the  United  States  had  been  involved 
in  bloody  and  expensive  wars. 

He  averred  that  the  treaty  had  therefore  been 
first  violated  by  Great  Britain  in  points  so  essential, 
that  without  them  the  treaty  would  not  have  been 
concluded,  and  that  for  these  breaches  the  United 
States  government  had  its  election  to  declare  it  dis- 
solved in  all  itsarticles,  to  compensate  itself  by  with- 
holding execution  of  equivalent  articles,  or  to  waive 
notice  of  its  infractions  altogether — that  the  laws 
impeding  the  collection  of  British  debts  were  passed 
by  the  States  in  retaliation  for  prior  and  cditinuous 
British  infractions  ;  and  that  waiving  this  justifica- 
tion, they  admitted  of  an  apology  under  the  peculiar 


■I 


*4 


POLITICAL    CONTROVERSIES 


and  embarrassing  circumstances  in  which  the  coun- 
try was  placed. 

In  concluding  his  reply,  Mr.  Jefferson  said  :  "  I 
have  now,  sir,  gone  through  the  several  acts  and 
proceedings  enunciated  in  your  appendix,  as  infrac- 
tions of  the  treaty,  omitting,  I  believe,  not  a  single 
one,  as  may  be  seen  by  a  table  hereto  subjoined, 
wherein  every  one  of  them,  as  marked  in  your  ap- 
pendix, is  referred  to  the  section  in  this  letter  in 
which  it  is  brought  into  view,  and  the  result  has  been 
as  you  have  seen. 

1.  That  there  was  no  absolute  stipulation  to  re- 
store antecedent  confiscations,  and  that  none  subse- 
quently took  place. 

2.  That  the  recovery  of  the  debts  was  obstructed 
validly  in  none  of  our  States,  invalidly  only  in  a  few, 
and  that,  not  till  long  after  the  infractions  committed 
on  the  other  side,  and 

3.  That  the  decision  of  courts  and  juries  against 
the  claims  for  interest,  are  too  probably  founded  to 
give  cause  of  questioning  their  integrity. 

These  things  being  evident,  I  cannot  but  flatter 
myself,  after  the  assurance  received  from  you  of  his 
majesty's  desire  to  remove  every  occasion  of  misun- 
derstanding from  between  us,  that  an  end  will  now 
be  put  to  the  disquieting  situation  of  the  two  coun- 
tries, by  a  complete  execution  of  the  treaty  as  far  as 
circumstances  render  practicable  at  this  lal«r  .  : 
that  it  is  to  be  done  so  late  has  been  the  sour  ..t:  i 
heavy  losses  of  blood  and  treasure  to  the  Uni^^d 
States.  Still,  our  desire  of  friendly  accommodation 
is,  and  has  been  constant. 

No  laivful  impediment  has  been  opposed  to  the 


UNITED    STATES    -GREAT    BRITAIN.        15 


prosecution  of  the  just  rights  of  your  citizens.  And 
if  instances  of  unlawful  impediments  have  existed 
in  any  of  the  inferior  tribunals,  they  would,  like  other 
unlawful  proceedings,  have  been  overruled  on  appeal 
to  the  higher  courts.  If  not  overruled  there,  a  com- 
plaint to  the  government  would  have  been  regular, 
and  its  interference  probably  effectual." 

Anxious,  however,  for  the  removal  of  every  pre- 
text for  an  evasion  of  the  treaty  by  Great  Britain, 
and  assured  that  the  latter  would  concur  in  its  fulfill- 
ment, Congress,  in  1787,  had  declared  to  the  States 
its  will  that  even  the  appearance  of  obstacle  should 
no  longer  continue,  and  required  the  repeal  of  every 
act  of  this  nature.  This,  Mr.  Jefferson  said,  was 
only  done  to  take  away  pretext,  for  that  it  was 
at  all  times  perfectly  understood  that  treaties  con- 
stituted the  laws  of  the  States  —  the  Confederation 
having  "made  them  obligatory  on  the  whole  —  Con- 
gress having  so  declared  and  demonstrated  them  — 
the  legislatures  and  executives  of  most  of  the  States 
having  admitted  it — and  the  judiciaries,  both  of  the 
separate  and  of  the  General  Government,  so  de- 
ciding." 

Mr.  Hammond  replied  that  he  must  submit  Mr. 
Jefferson's  communication  to  his  court,  and  await 
their  instructions. 

On  the  4th  of  June,  1792,  Mr.  JeKerson  wrote  to 
Mr.  Madison,  that  in  an  unofficial  conversation,  the 
British  minister  admitted  that  the  case  was  present- 
ed in  an  entirely  new  aspect  from  that  in  which  his 
country  had  hitherto  viewed  it  —  that  the  charge  of 
first  infractions  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain,  and  jus- 
tification of  the  action  of  the  States  on  that  ground, 


1 

I 


f6 


POLITICAL  controvf:i<sies 


i . 


made  a  case  to  which  his  instructions  did  not  apply, 
and  smiling  at  the  idea  of  his  being  able  to  order 
the  Governor  of  Canada  to  surrender  the  posts,  im- 
pressing Jefferson  with  the  belief  that  such  surrender 
had  not  entered  into  the  expectations  of  his  court, 
he  stated  that  he  expected  to  receive  instructions  by 
the  time  Congress  should  meet. 

Month  after  month  passed  away,  when  Mr.  Jef- 
ferson, on  the  17th  of  June,  1793,  again  called  the 
attention  of  the  British  minister  to  the  subject,  ask- 
ing when  he  could  expect  a  reply  to  his  communica- 
tion made  more  than  twelve  months  previously,  and 
stating  that  while,  from  the  impcance  of  the  sub- 
ject, a  certain  degree  of  delay  in  the  reply  was  to  be 
expected,  this  had  now  become  so  great  as  naturally 
to  generate  disquietude,  and  that  the  detention  of 
the  western  posts  cost  daily  such  an  expenditure  of 
blood  arid  treasure  as  could  not  but  produce  cor- 
responding anxiety. 

All  efforts  failed  to  change  the  position  of  the 
British  government.  The  reverses  of  an  exhausting 
war  had  compelled  Great  Britain  to  conclude  a  treaty 
which  greatly  wounded  the  national  pride, and  which, 
as  construed  by  the  United  States,  was  looked  upon 
as  highly  prejudicial  to  the  interests  of  British  cred- 
itors. For  the  benefit  of  creditors  on  either  side, 
the  fourth  article  of  the  treaty  declared  that  "  it  is 
agreed  that  creditors  on  either  side  shall  meet  with 
no  lawful  impediment  to  the  recovery  of  the  full  val- 
ue, in  sterling  money,  of  all  bona  fide  debts  hereto- 
fore contracted."  Unfortunately,  without  the  inter- 
position of  even  unlawful  impediments,  the  complete 
pecuniary  prostration  of  the  United  States,  at  the 


UNITED    STATES  — GREAT    H  RITA  IN.       17 


close  of  a  protracted  and  devastating  war.and  the  de- 
lay incident  to  judicial  proceedings  in  the  depressed 
condition  of  agricultural  and  commercial  pursuits, 
afforded  no  encouraging  aspect  to  either  a  foreign 
or  domestic  creditor.seekingthe  aid  of  judicial  tribu- 
nals. 

If  resorting  to  these,  he  looked  forward  wi'rh  r.nx- 
iety  to  legal  delays,  with  a  possibility  of  finding  at 
the  end  of  a  protracted  law  suit,  that  his  debtor  had 
become  hopelessly  insolvent.  A  situation  so  unsat- 
isfactory, naturally  aroused  the  resentment  of  the 
British  creditor,  inspired  him  with  the  belief  that  he 
was  being  sacrificed  by  the  culpability  of  his  own  gov- 
ernment, or  by  transatlantic  perfidy,  and  he  became 
clamorous  for  relief.  Charges  of  treaty  infractions 
followed, which  were  seized  upon  by  the  British  gov- 
ernment as  excuses  for  withholding  the  western  posts 
and  refusing  compensation  for  deported  property. 
These  irritating  questions,  consequently,  remained 
unsettled,  until  disposed  of  by  Jay's  treaty. 

Besides  the  irritating  questions  connected  with 
the  treaty  of  peace,  the  commercial  relations  of  the 
United  States  with  Great  Britain,  soon  became  a 
subject  of  profound  interest  to  the  American  mind, 
and  were  destined  for  many  years  to  be  a  source  of 
unfriendly  and  bitter  feeling.  At  an  early  day  the 
United  States  sought  the  formation  of  commercial 
treaties  with  foreign  nations  and  associated  John 
Adams,  Dr.  Franklin  and  Mr.  Jefferson  in  a  commis- 
sion for  this  purpose.  Frederick  the  Great,  had  al- 
ready made  advances  to  Mr.  Adams  in  this  direc- 
tion, and  when  the  commissioners  met  at  Paris  on  the 
30th  day  of  August,i784,negotiations  were  prosecuted 
3 


n 


POLITICAL    CONTROVERSIES 


to  a  successful  issue  on  the  broad  and  liberal  basis  of 
free  trade,  freedom  of  neutrals,  respect  of  the  private 
property  of  enemies  at  sea,  the  abolition  of  priva- 
teering and  restrictions  upon  the  confiscation  of 
contraband  of  war.  Other  continental  governments 
met  their  overtures  in  a  friendly  spirit  but  without 
productive  results.  In  May,  1785,  Mr.  Adams,  as 
minister  envoy,  proceeded  to  the  court  of  St.  James, 
and  was  soon  after  joined  by  Mr.  Jefferson,  with  the 
design  of  effecting  a  commercial  treaty  with  Great 
Britain.  Both  had  been  conspicuous  in  sustaining 
the  colonial  cause  and  bringing  it  to  a  successful 
issue;  both  had  been  upon  the  sub-committee, which 
drafted  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  with  its 
severe  arraignment  of  the  English  King ;  and  now, 
for  their  signal  services  and  great  political  experience 
and  knowledge,  both  had  been  selected  to  urge  upon 
the  British  Government  a  fair  and  liberal  treaty.  It 
is  not  probable  that  a  character  like  that  of  George 
III  could  wholly  forget  or  forgive  their  past 
conduct;  the  American  refugees  had  been  vociferous 
in  complaints  and  predictions  of  the  downfall  of  the 
American  confederacy  from  internal  dissensions; 
and  the  British  people,  still  sore  over  the  loss  of  the 
colonies  and  the  disasters  of  war,  had  not  been 
averse  to  seeking  reparation  of  military  misfortunes 
through  the  peaceful  channels  of  any  commercial 
restrictions  which  wc  jld  accomplish  that  result.  The 
measures  adopted  were  adverse  to  the  opinion  of 
William  Pitt  while  he  was  acting  as  chancellor  under 
Lord  Shelbourne,  but  the  ministry  of  the  latter, 
meeting  with  a  speedy  overthrow,  the  liberal  propo- 
sitions of  Pitt  were  succeeded  in  July,  1783,  by  an 


UNIT  E  I)    STAT  K  S      Ci  R  E  AT    H  K  1  T  A  I  N. 


«9 


exclusive  system,  which  by  orders  in  council,  and 
then  by  temporary  acts  of  parliament,  subsequently 
made  permanent,  treated  the  United  States  as  utter 
strangers,  and  excluded  their  trade  from  the  Eng- 
lish colonies. 

The  efforts  of  the  commissioners  to  procure  a 
more  liberal  policy  proved  unavailing;  and  after  the 
departure  of  Mr.  Jefiferi^op.  Mr.  Adams  remained  in 
England  until,  at  his  own  request,  he  was  re-called 
in  1788.  According  to  his  biographer,  he  had  found 
the  king  cold — hi^  solicitations  for  the  execution  of 
several  articles  of  the  treaty  of  1783  fruitless — his 
official  representations  unheeded — the  courtesy  of 
sending  a  minister  to  the  United  States  neglected, 
and  he  returned  home  fully  convinced  that  nothing 
but  ill  will  was  to  be  expected  from  Grtat  Britain. 

In  addition  to  the  unfriendly  attitude  already  as- 
sumed by  Great  Britain  upon  commercial  questions, 
and  in  meeting  the  advances  of  the  American  com- 
missioners, fresh  complications  were  soon  destined 
to  arise  out  of  the  declaration  of  war  by  the  French 
republic  against  Great  Britain  and  Holland. 

On  the  seventeenth  of  April,  seventeen  hundred 
and  ninety-one,  the  American  secretary  of  state 
called  the  attention  of  the  president,  then  absent 
from  the  capital,  to  the  British  commercial  spirit, 
and  wrote;  "you  knew,  I  think,  before  you  left  us, 
that  the  British  parliament  had  a  bill  before  them 
for  allowing  wheat  in  British  bottoms  to  be  ware- 
housed rent  free.  In  order  further  to  circumscribe 
the  carrying  business  of  the  United  States,  they  now 
refuse  to  consider  as  an  American  bottom,  any  ves- 
sel not  built  here.     By  this  construction  they  take 


(].    'm"! 


I'OM'rrCAL    CONTUOVKRSIKS 


from  us  the  right  of  defining  by  our  own  laws,  what 
vessels  shall  be  deemed  ours  and  naturalized  here, 
and  in  the  event  of  a  war,  in  which  we  should  be 
neutral,  they  put  it  out  of  our  power  to  benefit  our- 
selves of  our  neutrality,  by  increasing  suddenly  by 
purchase  and  naturalization,  our  means  of  carriage. 
If  we  are  permitted  to  do  this  by  building  only,  the 
war  will  be  over  before  we  are  prepared  to  take  ad- 
vantage of  it.  This  has  been  decided  by  the  Lords 
commissioners  of  the  Treasury  in  the  case  of  one 
Green,  a  merchant  of  New  York,  from  whom  I  have 
received  a  requisite  complaint  on  the  subject." 

The  secretary  of  state,  on  the  second  of  Decem- 
ber, seventeen  hundred  and  ninety-one,  proposed  to 
Congress  the  adoption  of  certain  rules  o(  retaliation 
to  the  principles  advanced  by  Great  Britain, under  the 
disastrous  operation  of  which  he  represented,that  the 
United  States  had  lost  between  "eight  and  nine  hun- 
dred vessels  of  near  forty  thousand  tons  burden,  ac- 
cording to  statements  from  official  material,  and  that 
involved  a  proportionate  loss  of  ship  building."  To 
the  grave  questions  which  grew  out  of  the  treaty  of 
seventeen  hundred  and  eighty-three,  and  the  restric- 
tive policy  of  Great  Britain,  were  now  added  those 
which  sprang  from  a  state  of  European  war,and  which 
pressed  with  great  and  embarrassing  weight  upon 
the  American  government. 

The  President,  as  well  as  the  people,  fully  recog- 
nized the  right  of  every  nation  to  change  and  regu- 
late its  own  political  institutions  as  it  pleased ; 
they  Sympathized  with  every  legitimate  movement 
in  favor  of  republican  government,  and  they  were 
deeply  grateful  for  the  aid  furnished  by  France  in 


UNITED    STATES      GRKAT    H  RITA  IN.       41 


their  own  revolutionary  strugjjie.  With  these  feel- 
in  jjs  towards  France,  Great  Britain  was  n  t  by  the 
'  irritation  and  profound  resentment,  that  grew  out 
cf  alleged  treaty  infractions,  and  the  enforcement  of 
a  highly  injurious,  if  not  illegal,  commercial  policy. 
With  the  national  heart  thus  inclined,  the  overthrow 
of  the  French  throne  and  the  triumph  of  the  French 
people,  in  the  outburst  of  the  revolution  caused  the 
popular  pulse  in  the  United  States  to  beat  with  an 
almost  ungovernable  fervor,  which  threatened  an  ut- 
ter disregard  of  the  dictates  of  duty  and  prudence. 

Fully  sensible  of  the  gravity  of  the  situation  and 
calm  amidst  the  effervescence  of  the  public  mind, 
President  Washington  consulted  the  members  of  his 
cabinet,  and,  after  mature  consideration,  determined 
to  maintain  the  strictest  neutrality  between  the  bel* 
ligerents,  equally  as  a  matter  of  duty  and  of  nation- 
al policy.  He  accordingly,  on  the  twenty-second 
day  of  April,  1793,  issued  a  proclamation  enjoining 
the  strictest  neutrality  between  the  contending  pow- 
ers. This  position  was,  however,  repugnant  to  the 
views  of  the  French  rulers.  In  November  of  the  pre- 
ceding year,  the  national  convention  had  issued  the 
famous  decree,  which  declared  in  the  name  of  the 
French  nation,  "that  they  will  grant  fraternity  and 
assistance  to  every  people  who  wish  to  recover  their 
liberty;  and  they  charge  the  executive  power  to 
send  the  necessary  orders  to  the  generals  to  give 
assistance  to  such  people,  and  to  defend  "those  citi- 
zens, who  may  have  been  or  who  may  be  vexed  for 
the  cause  of  liberty." 

Under  this  standard,   reared   in  behalf  of  the 
* 'vexed    cause  of  liberty,"  they   were  particularly 


2Z 


POLITICAL    CONTROVERSIES 


anxious  to  enlist  the  people  of  the  United  States 
and  to  drag  repubh'can  America  into  a  general  cru- 
sade against  monarchical  governments.  For  this' 
purpose,  citizen  Genet  was  dispatched  as  minister  to 
the  United  States,  thoroughly  indoctrinated  with 
the  feeh'ngs  of  the  French  revolutionary  leaders,  and 
wholly  and  zealously  intent  upon  accomplishing 
their  cherished  designs.  Arriving  at  Charleston, 
South  Carolina,  on  the  8th  day  of  April,  1793,  he 
was  received  by  the  governor  and  the  citizens  with 
a  cordiality  which  filled  him  with  the  most  confident 
expectations  of  the  successful  issue  of  his  plans. 
Everything  seemed  to  correspond  with  his  wishes, 
and,  remaining  several  days,  he  proceeded  to  au- 
thorize the  fitting  out  of  vessels  and  to  give  commis- 
sions to  cruise  and  to  capture  vessels  belonging  to 
nations  at  peace  with  the  United  States.  The  cap- 
tured vessels  were  brought  into  port  and  adjudicat- 
ed upon  by  the  French  consul,  acting  under  the  au- 
thority of  Genet,  as  a  court  of  admiralty. 

From  Charleston,  Genet  went  to  Philadelphia, 
where  he  was  received  with  a  popular  ovation,  well 
calculated  to  inspire  him  with  the  belief  that  the 
national  feelings  were  in  full  harmony  with  his  own, 
and  were  ready  to  second  and  sustain  him  in  his 
course.  Emboldened  by  the  public  demonstra- 
tions of  fraternal  feelini^s,  the  French  frigate,  L' 
Ambuscade,  captured  within  American  waters  the 
British  ship  Grange,  which  had  cleared  at  Philadel- 
phia and  was  on  her  way  to  the  ocean. 

The  British  minister  promptly  demanded  the 
restitution  of  the  French  prizes,  and  complained  of 
the  assumptions  of  sovereignty  by  Genet,  and  of  the 
violation  of  the  laws  of  neutrality. 


UNITED    STATES-GREAT    BRITAIN.        i% 


Upon  a  cabinet  consultation,  it  was  unanimously 
agreeci  that  the  proceedings  complained  of  were  un- 
authorized by  any  treaty,  were  usurpations  of  na- 
tional sovereignty,  and  a  violation  of  neutral  rights, 
[and   that   their  repetition  ought  to  be  prevented. 
It  was  also  determined  by  the  American  govern-' 
[ment    that     prosecutions    should     be     commenced 
[against  those  citizens  who  had  participated  in  them. 
This   official   action   was  communicated  to  the 
French  and  English  ministers,  and  circular  letters 
were  addressed   to   the   executives   of  the   several 
states,  requiring  their  co-operation  in  maintaining 
the  pacific  and  neutral  position  assumed  by  the  gen- 
eral government.      This  course  of  the  government 
filled  the  bosom  of  the  French  minister  with  resent- 
ment, and,  in  his  disappointment  and  rage,  he  re- 
monstrated  against  it   in  terms  that  violated  the 
rules  of  official   courtesy.      Relying  upon  popular 
support,  he  had  the  effrontery  to  censure  the  course 
of  the  President  as  transcending  his  constitutional 
powers,  and  strange  as  it  may  seem,  he  found  nu- 
merous supporters,  who,  carried  away  by  the  enthu- 
siasm of  the  period,  seemed  ready  to  join  hands  and 
act  in  concert  v.th  the  Jacobin  clubs  of  Paris.     The 
ensigns  of  France  and  the  United  States  were  dis- 
played together  at  their  civic  festivals,  "the  red  cap, 
as  a  symbol  of  French  liberty  and  fraternity,  was 
passed  triumphantly  from  head  to  head,"  while  the 
press,  which  favored   Genets  teemed  with  publica- 
tions reflecting  upon  the  course  of  the  executive, 
and  contrasting  in  vivid  colors,  the  amiable  conduct 
of  France  during  the  trying  scenes  of  the  revolu- 
tionary war,  and  the  continued  enmity  of  England. 


24 


POLITICAL    CONTROVERSIES 


i|ii 


Reviewing  the  history  of  the  two  nations  in  this  as- 
pect, it  was  asked,  "if  the  services  of  the  one  as  well 
as  the  injuries  of  the  other  should  be  forgotten?  that 
a  friend  and  an  enemy  should  be  treated  with  equal 
favor?  and  that  neither  gratitude  nor  resentment 
should  constitute  a  feature  of  American  character?" 
The  supposed  freedom  of  the  French  was  compared 
with  the  imagined  slavery  of  the  English,  and  it  was 
demanded  whether  "the  people  of  America  were 
alike  friendly  to  republicanism  and  to  monarchy ;  to 
liberty  and  to  despotism?" 

While  the  President  was  greatly  annoyed  by  the 
unwarrantable  conduct  of  Genet,  and  by  the  intem- 
perate accusations  and  language  of  his  followers,  on 
the  other  hand  he  found  England,  for  the  purpose  of 
increasing  the  internal  distress  of  France  by  a  scarc- 
ity of  provisions,  furnishing  fuel  to  the  public  dis- 
content by  issuing  orders  to  her  enemies  to  stop  and 
send  to  her  most  convenient  ports,  all  vessels  loaded 
wholly  or  in  part  with  corn,  flour  and  meal,  and  bound 
to  any  port  in  France,  in  order  that  their  cargoes, 
upon  certain  terms,  should  be  appropriated  to  the 
use  of  the  British  government,  or  permitted  to  pro- 
ceed to  any  country  in  amity  with  Great  Britain. 

In  his  annual  message  to  Congress  in  December  of 
this  year,the  President  reviewed  in  mild  and  firm  lan- 
guage the  condition  of  our  foreign  relations  and  the 
proceedings  which  he  had  been  induced  to  take  in  the 
new  and  delicate  posture  of  public  affairs. 

On  the  next  day  he  transmitted  a  special  message, 
in  which  he  adverted  to  the  conduct  of  Genet,  and  to 
the  recent  British  orders.  As  to  the  former,  he  said 
that  his  acts  and  those  of  his  agents  had  a  tendency 


UNITED    STATES    -GREAT    BRITAIN.        25 


to  involve  us  in  a  war  abroad,  and  discord  and  an- 
archy at  home,  but  that  so  far  as  they  threatened 
an  immediate  commitment  of  the  United  States  to 
war,  a  flagrant  insult  to  the  authority  of  laws,  their 
effect  had  been  counteracted  by  the  ordinary  cogni- 
zance of  the  laws,  and  by  the  exertion  of  the  powers 
confided  to  him— that  he  had  respected  and  pursued 
the  stipulations  of  the  treaties  according  to  what  he 
judged  their  true  sense,  had  withheld  no  act  of 
friendship  which  the  affairs  of  France  called  from 
us,  and  which  justice  to  others  left  us  free  to  per- 
form; and  rather  than  employ  force  for  the  restitu- 
tion of  certain  vessels,  which  he  deemed  the  United 
States  bound  to  restore,  he  thought  it  was  advisa- 
ble to  satisfy  the  parties  by  avowing  it  as  his  opin- 
ion that  if  restitution  were  not  made,  it  would  be 
the  duty  of  the  United  States  to  make  compensation." 
At  his  instance,  France  recalled  her  minister,  the 
industrious  and  impudent  fomenter  of  domestic  dis- 
cord and  foreign  embroilment,  and  by  his  official 
bearing  towards  the  French  nation,  however,  em- 
barrassed by  past  relations  and  the  sympathies  of 
the  people  in  the  cause  of  republicanism,  he  clearly 
indicated  his  fixed  purpose  to  avoid  giving  Great 
Britain  any  just  cause  of  offense.  The  pacific  policy 
of  the  United  States  was,  however,  with  the  great- 
est difficulty  maintained,  under  the  guidance  of  the 
just  and  sagacious  Washington,  against  the  irritating 
course  of  the  English  government.  The  broad  ap- 
plication by  the  latter,  at  this  critical  juncture,  of  a 
principle  which  had  generally  been  understood  as 
only  applicable  to  ports  actually  blockaded;  her  per- 
sistent course  in  taking  sailors  from  neutral  vessels 

4 


-r 


a« 


POLITICAL    CONTROVERSIES 


under  the  pretence  that  they  were  British  subjects' 
in  utter  disregard  of  the  flag  which  floated  over  them ; 
and  the  non- surrender  of  the  northwestern  posts,  be- 
came fruitful  sources  of  vituperation  and  resentment. 

A  wide  spread  impression  existed  that  Great  Brit- 
ain was  availing  herself  of  the  possession  of  the  posts, 
not  only  for  the  benefit  of  the  fur  trade,  but  by  in- 
siduous  counsels  to  excite  unfriendly  feelings  among 
the  Indian  tribes  toward  the  United  States.  A 
supposed  speech  of  Lord  Dorchester  to  an  Indian 
deputation  at  Quebec,  declaring  that  war  would 
probably  break  out  between  the  two  countries  in 
the  course  of  the  year,  and  that  the  new  line  must 
be  drawn  by  the  sword,  although  subsequently  dis- 
avowed, was  looked  upon  as  significant  of  the  designs 
of  England,  and  contributed  to  inflame  the  public 
mind. 

Intense  exasperation  at  the  conduct  of  Great  Brit- 
ain finally  pervaded  the  American  people,  and  sway- 
ed the  deliberations  of  Congress,  until  a  declaration 
of  war  seemed  imminent.  To  avert  so  great  a  cal- 
amity, Washington  determined  to  make  another  at- 
tempt at  negotiation,  and  sent  to  the  Senate  the 
nomination  of  John  Jay  as  Envoy-Extraordinary  of 
the  United  States  at  the  court  of  St.  James.assigning 
as  a  reason  for  this  step,  that  "peace  ought  to  be  pur- 
sued with  unremitted  zeal  before  the  last  resource 
which  has  so  often  been  the  scourge  of  nations,  and 
could  not  fail  to  check  the  advanced  prosperity  of 
the  United  States."  This  nomination  being  con- 
firmed, Mr.  Jay  proceeded  to  England,  and  on  the 
twenty-seventh  day  of  June  following,  opened  con- 
ferences at  London,  with  Lord  Grenville. 


UNITED    STATES  — GREAT    BRITAIN. 


2^ 


He  had  been  instructed  to  seek  reparation  for 
depredations  upon  American  commerce  and  rights, 
an  adjustment  of  the  controverted  questions  arising 
from  the  inexecution  of  the  treaty  of  1783,  partic- 
ularly the  surrender  of  the  western  posts,  and  if  suc- 
cessful upon  these  to  make  overtures  for  a  treaty  of 
commerce  to  embody  certain  specified  provisions. 
The  British  negotiator  professed  a  desire  to  do  full 
and  impartial  justice  for  the  injuries  that  had  been 
.sustained,  promised  the  interposition  of  his  govern- 
ment for  that  purpose,when  redress  was  not  obtaina- 
ble in  the  ordinary  course  of  law,  and  expressed  an 
intention  to  remove  all  causes  of  complaint  on  the 
ground  of  impressment  of  American  seamen. 

Each  party  co...plained  of  infractions  of  the  treaty 
of  Peace,  and  mutual  concessions  were  proposed. 
England  sought  for  a  contraction  of  the  northwest- 
ern boundary,  but  abandoned  this  effort  after  a 
strenuous  controversy,  and  the  preliminary  difficul- 
ties being  overcome,  projects  of  treaties  were  ex- 
changed. That  of  Jay  was  based  on  the  ground  of 
equivalents,  by  which  all  mutual  complaints  and 
claims  were  settled. 

On  the  part  of  Great  Britain  the  outline  of  two 
treaties  was  presented,  one  relating  to  existing  con- 
troversies, the  other  to  commerce.  After  several 
modifications,  a  treaty  was  concluded,  which  provid- 
ed for  the  surrender  of  the  posts  on  the  first  of 
June,  1796;  for  the  adjustment  of  the  north  eastern 
boundary;  designated  certain  western  lines,  pre- 
scribed certain  duties,  and  provided  for  certain  com- 
mercial rights.  The  United  States  assumed  the  pay- 
ment of  the  Briti.sh  debts  referred  to  in  the  treaty 
of  1783. 


^B 


# 


POLITICAL    CONTROVERSIES 


With  one  article  limited  in  duration  to  two  years 
after  the  close  of  the  European  war,  the  treaty  was 
to  continue  in  force  for  twelve  years.  It  was  signed 
at  London  in  November,  1794,  arrived  in  the  United 
States  in  the  following  March  and  after  bitter  op- 
position, it  was  ratified  by  the  Senate  on  the  twenty- 
fourth  of  June,  1795,  by  precisely  the  constitutional 
majority,  upon  the  condition  that  an  article  should 
be  added,  which  should  suspend  so  much  of  the 
twelfth  article  as  related  to  the  West  India  trade, 
with  respect  to  which  the  President  was  requested 
to  open  new  negotiations. 

A  proviso  had  been  attached  to  this  article  to 
which  Jay  had  unfortunately  assented, stipulating  that 
American  vessels  should  carry  and  land  their  car- 
goes in  the  United  States  only,  and  that  the  United 
States  would  "prohibit  and  restrain  the  carrying  of 
molasses,  sugar,  coffee,  cocoa  or  cotton  in  American 
vessels  either  from  his  majesty's  island  or  from  the 
United  States  to  any  part  of  the  world,  except  the 
United  States."  And  even  upon  this  basis,  so  great 
had  been  Jay's  difficulty  in  effecting  the  treaty,  that 
he  wrote  to  a  friend,  "if  this  treaty  fails  I  despair  of 
another." 

The  treaty  as  modified,  was,  however,  ratified  by 
his  Britannic  majesty,  and  intelligence  thereof  reach- 
ed the  United  States  in  February,  1796.  The  Presi- 
dent immediatly  issued  his  proclamation  announc- 
ing its  ratification  and  requiring  its  observance;  and 
Congress,  after  a  violent  and  stubborn  opposition, 
by  a  vote  of  5 1  to  48,  made  the  necessary  appropria- 
tion to  carry  it  into  effect. 

While    the  ratification  was  pending,  the  treaty 


UNITED    STATES  — GREAT    BRITAIN.       29 


was  the  subject  of  public  discussion,  of  the  severest 
criticism  and  of  the  most  violent  abuse.  It  was  silent 
upon  the  question  of  impressment,  no  provision 
was  made  for  compensation  for  deported  negroes 
as  stipulated  by  the  treaty  of  1783;  an  attempt  had 
been  made  to  reduce  the  limits  of  the  United  States, 
and  the  proviso  to  the  twelfth  article  which  had 
been  proposed  was  universally  odious.  Hostility 
to  the  treaty  itself,  was  intensified  by  the  intel- 
ligence that  Great  Britain  had  renewed  the  order 
for  the  seizure  of  provisionsdestined  to  French  ports, 
but  which  order  was  rescinded  on  the  tenth  of  Sep- 
tember, 1795.  ,  *      • 

The  attempt  of  Captain  Holmes,  commander  of 
a  British  Frigate,  to  seize  the  French  minister,  who 
was  sailing  in  an  American  vessel  within  the  waters 
of  the  Uuited  States,  followed  by  a  threatening 
letter  to  the  Governor  of  Rhode  Island,  contributed 
still  more  to  increase  the  public  exasperation,  which 
was  soon  manifested  by  wide  spread  and  alarming 
discontent.  In  Philadelphia  the  enemies  of  the  treaty 
observed  the  Fourth  of  July  as  a  day  of  humiliation, 
and  closed  it  with  the  exhibition  of  a  transparency 
of  Jay  holding  scales  in  which  British  gold  was  re- 
presented as  preponderating  over  American  inde- 
pendence, and  by  publicly  burning  the  effigy. 

In  Boston,  Samuel  Adams,  one  of  the  strong 
pillars  of  the  Revolution,  took  part  in  a  town  meet- 
ing, which  condemned  the  treaty  in  severe  and  in- 
dignant terms.  A  similar  meeting  was  held  in 
Charleston,  South  Carolina,  in  which  Charles  Pinkney 
was  conspicuous,  and  in  which  chief  Justice  Rutledgc 
and  Gadsen,  the  revolutionary  patriot,  acted  in  con- 


|9  POLITICAL    CONTROVKRSIES       ' 

cert  while  an  excited  populace  dragged  the  British 
flag  along  the  streets  and  burned  it  in  front  of  the 
British  consulate.  In  Philadelphia  the  windows 
of  the  residence  of  the  British  Minister  were  broken 
by  a  mob,  and  a  copy  of  the  treaty  publicly  burned. 

In  Petersburgh,  Virginia,  the  provision  for  the 
payment  of  British  creditors  was  denounced  as  un- 
constitutional, increasing  "  the  ignominious  tribute 
we  now  pay  to  British  speculators."  At  Richmond, 
a  meeting  presided  over  by  Chancellor  Wythe,  pro- 
nounced the  treaty  *'  insulting  to  the  dignity,  injurious 
to  the  interests,  and  repugnant  to  the  constitution 
of  the  United  States." 

While  it  was  under  consideration,  the  original  in- 
tention of  the  President  to  approve,  was  doubtless 
strengthened  by  the  opinion  which  he  obtained  from 
Alexander  Hamilton,  in  a  letter  dated  the  sixth  of 
July,  which  reviewed  the  different  articles  of  the 
treaty.  Hamilton  condemned  the  12th  article,  and 
was  glad  that  the  Senate  had  rejected  it,  but  upon 
the  general  character  of  the  treaty,  he  said  that 
"the  truly  important  side  of  the  treaty  is.  that  it 
closes,  and  upon  the  whole,  as  reasonably  as  could 
have  been  expected,  the  controverted  points  between 
the  two  countries,  and  thereby  gives  the  prospect  of 
repossessing  our  western  posts,  an  object  of  primary 
consequence  in  our  affairs,  of  escaping  finally  from  be- 
ing implicated  In  the  dreadful  war  which  is  ruiningEu- 
rope;  and  preserving  ourselves  for  a  considerable  time 
to  come.  Well  considered,  the  greatest  interest  of  this 
country  in  its  external  relations,  is  that  of  peace. 

The  more  or  less  of  commercial  advantages  which 
we  may  acquire  by  particular  treaties  are  of  far  less 


UNITKD    STATES      GREAT    » RITA  IN.       31 


moment.  With  peace,  the  force  of  circumstances 
will  enable  us  to  make  our  way  sufficiently  fast  in 
trade.  War  at  this  time  would  give  a  serious  wound 
to  our  growth  and  prosperity.  Can  we  escape  it  for 
ten  or  twelve  years  more,  we  may  then  meet  it  with- 
out much  inquietude,  and  may  advance  and  support 
with  energy  and  effect  any  just  pretensions  to 
greater  commercial  advantages  than  we  enjoy." 

Although  President  Washington  finally  approv- 
ed the  treaty,  in  his  private  correspondence,  he  in- 
dicated his  resentment  at  the  course  of  Great  Britain, 
and  the  motives  which  controlled  his  own  conduct. 

In  a  letter  to  Hamilton  in  August,  1795,  in  re- 
ference to  a  renewal  of  negotiations,  after  stating 
his  official  knowledge  of  an  order  having  been  secret- 
ly issued  for  the  seizure  of  all  provision  vessels  go- 
ing to  France,  he  adds:  "By  these  high-handed 
measures  of  that  government,  and  the  outrageous 
and  insulting  conduct  of  its  officers,  it  would  seem 
next  to  impossible  to  keep  peace  between  the  United 
States  and  Great  Britain, 

To  this  moment,  we  have  received  no  explanation 
of  Holmes'  conduct  from  their  charge  d'  affaires 
here,  although  application  was  made  for  it  before  the 
departure  of  Mr.  Hammond,  on  the  statement  of 
Governor  Fenner,  and  the  complaint  of  the  French 
minister.  Conduct  like  this  disarms  the  friends  of 
peace  and  order,  while  they  are  the  very  things 
which  those  of  a  contrary  disposition  are  wishing  to 
see  practiced."  ^  ^  ,  •  -.  ?    ' 

The  motives  which  prompted  Washington's  of- 
ficial action  at  this  time  are  disclosed  in  a  letter 
written  by  him  to  Patrick  Heiiry,  in  which  he  says; 


32 


POLITICAL    CONTROVERSIES 


**  my  ardent  desire  is,  and  my  aim  has  been,  as  far 
as  depended  upon  the  executive  department,  to  com- 
ply strictly  with  all  our  engagements,  foreign  and 
domestic,  but  to  keep  the  United  States  free  of 
political  connections  with  every  other  country,  to 
see  them  independent  of  all,  and  under  the  influence 
of  none.  In  a  word,  I  want  an  American  character, 
that  the  powers  of  Europe  may  be  convinced  that 
we  act  for  ourselves^  and  not  for  others." 

Although  the  treaty  was  silent  on  the  question 
of  impressment,  Mr.  Jay  had  been  assured  at  the 
commencement  of  the  negotiations,  of  the  purpose  of 
the  British  government  to  remove  all  causes  of  com- 
plaint on  this  ground.  The  failure  to  do  so  contrib- 
uted greatly  to  the  unpopularity  of  the  treaty  in  the 
United  States.  Its  enemies  made  this  omission  a 
fruitful  theme  of  invective,  and  assailed  the  friends 
of  ratification  as  subservient  to  British  interests. 
Hamilton,  himself,  did  not  escape  public  vituperation, 
but  jndging  from  his  private  correspondence,  was 
highly  incensed  by  the  conduct  of  the  British  min- 
istry, and  by  the  impressment  of  American  seamen. 
About  this  time  Great  Britain  complained  that  the 
treaty  had  been  contravened  by  a  treaty  between 
the  United  Silt* i  and  certain  Indians.  'This  mat- 
ter was  soon  satisfactorily  explained,  but  the  time 
at  which  the  complaint  was  made  appearing  em- 
inently inopportune,  Hamilton  with  his  temper  fully 
aroused,  disclosing  his  feelings  upon  the  subject, 
wrote  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury:  "  The  British 
ministry  are  as  great  fools  or  as  great  rascals  as 
our  Jacobins,  else  our  commerce  would  not  continue 
to  be  distressed  by  their  cruisers  ;  nor  would  the 


UNITED    STATES  -GREAT     BRITAIN.        33 


executive  be  embarrassed  as  ft  now  is,  by  this  new 
proposition."  After  suggesting  what  course  ought 
to  be  pursued  according  to  his  not  very  precise 
knowledge  of  the  circumstances;  he  says:  "Yet  the 
government  must  take  care  not  to  appear  pusillani- 
mous, I  hope  a  very  serious  remonstrance  has  long 
since  gone  against  the  wanton  impressment  of  our 
seamen.  It  will  be  an  error  to  be  too  tame  with 
this  overbearing  cabinet." 

But  neither  remon.strance  nor  a  sense  of  justice 
could  induce  Great  Britain  to  desist  from  the  prac- 
tice of  impressing  sailors  from  American  vessels, 
under  the  pretence  of  being  British  subjects,  or  to 
abandon  her  warfare  upon  neutral  commerce.  This 
policy,  commencing  soon  after  the  treaty  of  1783, 
was  destined  for  a  number  of  years  to  endanger  the 
peace  of  the  two  countries.  It  endangered  the  ratifica- 
tion of  the  treaty  of  1794,  and  became  the  subject  of 
fresh  remonstrance  while  the  ratification  of  the  lat- 
ter was  pending.  Whatever  course  or  peaceful  at- 
titude was  exacted  of  the  United  States  by  .sound 
policy,  it  can'-'ot  be  questioned  that  the  American 
mind  was  deeply  pervaded  by  a  sense  of  great  and 
unjustifiable  wrong. 

When  Congress  convened  in  seventeen  hundred 
and  ninety-six,  the  President  informed  that  body 
that  the  delay  in  the  surrender  of  the  posts  beyond 
the  time  fixed  by  treaty,  was  owing  to  a  delay  in 
making  the  necessary  appropriations  to  carry  the 
treaty  into  effect,  and  that  "  as  soon  as  the  governor 
general  could  be  addressed  with  propriety  on  the 
subject,  arrangements  were  cordially  and  promptly 
concluded    for    their   evacuation,    and    the    United 


34 


POLITICAL    CONTROVERJilKS 


States  took  possession  of  the  principal  of  them,  com- 
prehending Oswego,  Niagara,  Detroit,  Michilimack- 
inac  and  Fort  Miami."  He  also  informed  them 
that  the  board  of  commissioners  were  engaged  in 
the  performance  of  their  duties  with  regard  to  the 
settlement  of  the  north  east  boundary. 

The  treaty,  however  objectionable  to  the  United 
States,  had  the  effect  to  remove  one  serious  cause 
of  complaint,  and  placed  another  in  a  fair  way  of 
adjustment;  but  while  removing  some  causes  of  dis- 
cord and  disquietude,  it  unfortunately  left  others, 
which  continued  for  many  years  to  rankle  in  the 
American  bosom;  causes  of  discord  which  became 
a  prolific  source  of  complaint,  and  engendered  feel- 
ings inimical  to  the  relations  of  the  two  countries, 
which  otherwise  might  have  been  characterized  by 
that  harmony  which  is  strengthened  and  made  en- 
during by  just  and  liberal  treatment. 


CHAPTER   II. 


IMI'KESSMKNT  OF  AMERICAN  SKAMKN     EXASPEUATlNli 
CONDUCl   OF  ENGLAND    AND    FRANCE  —  DECLARA 
TION  OF  WAR  AdAINST   GREAT    HRITAIN      TREATY 
OF  GHENT. 

The  treaty  of  Amiens  signed  the  27th  of  March, 
eighteen  hundred  and  two,  but  negotiated  the  pre- 
ceding year,  restored  peace  to  Europe  and  removed 
all  pretext  for  the  impressment  of  American  sea- 
men or  the  violation  of  neutral  rights. 

When  Congress  convened  in  1 801,  Jefferson,  re- 
cently elected  President,  in  his  first  annual  message, 
congratulated  it  upon  the  reasonable  certaint)- 
that  the  wars  which  had  so  long  afflicted  sister 
nations,  were  terminated  and  that  the  pursuits  of 
peace  were  being  renewed  among  them.  He  also 
expressed  the  hope  that  wrongs,  committed  on  un- 
offending friends  under  a  pressure  of  circumstances, 
would  be  candidly  reviewed  and  justly  redressed. 

In  his  next  annual  message,  he  expressed  his 
satisfaction  at  an  act  of  the  British  parliament,  which 
authorized  a  mutual  abolition  of  the  duties  and 
countervailing  duties  permitted  under  the  treaty  of 
1794,  and  which  manifested  a  spirit  of  justice  and 
friendly  accommodation  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain, 
which  it  was  the  duty  and  interest  of  the  United 
States  to  cultivate  with  all  nations.  Unfortunately, 
the  peace,  which  was  so  full  of  promise,  was  destined 
to  a  speedy  close,  and  the  United  States  became 
subjected  to  fresh  annoyance.  The  belligerent 
powers,   intent   upon   mutual   injury,  permitted   no 


36 


POLITICAL    CON  rROVE:RSIi:S 


principle  of  justice  or  of  internatiorial  law  to  impede 
the  prosecution  of  their  aggressive  and  military  plans. 
British  vessels  were  soon  found  hovering  upon  the 
American  coasts,  and  capturing  upon  the  high  seas 
and  even  at  the  very  entrance  of  American  harbors, 
not  only  American  vessels,  but  also  those  of  friendly 
powers. 

To  such  extremes  were  these  audacities  carried, 
that  the  President  was  finally  constrained  to  equip  a 
force  to  cruise  in  the  American  seas  for  self-protec- 
tion and  to  bring  the  offenders  to  justice.  The  ag- 
gressions being  still  persisted  in,  Congress  was  in- 
duced in  March,  i8o6,  to  prohibit  the  importation  of 
certain  goods  of  British  growth  and  manufacture. 

The  accession  of  Mr.  Fox  to  the  English  ministry 
upon  the  death  of  Mr.  Pitt,  revived  in  American 
councils  the  hope  of  an  amicable  and  satisfactory  ad- 
justment of  all  causes  of  complaint;  but  the  sudden 
death  of  that  distinguished  statesman  greatly  modi- 
fied the  expectations,  that  had  been  founded  upon  his 
personal  character.  Instructions  were  subsequently 
forwarded  to  Mr.  Monroe  and  his  associate,  Pinkney, 
not  to  conclude  a  treaty,  which  did  not  provide 
against  the  impressment  of  American  .seamen.  Be- 
fore these  instructions  were  received,  the  American 
ministers  at  the  court  of  St.  James  had  concluded  a 
treaty  which,  in  the  opinion  of  the  President,  so  es- 
sentially failed  to  do  justice  to  the  claims  of  the 
United  States,  that  he  promptly  decided  to  withhold 
it  from  the  Senate,  and  to  make  another  effort  at 
negotiation.  It  was  especially  objectionable, becau  ^e 
it  did  not  secure  protection  to  American  seamen,  and 
was  accompanied  by  a  note  by  which  the  British 


UNITED    STATES  -GREAT    HRITAIN.        37 


srovernment  made  the  observance  of  the  stipulations 
as  to  neutral  rights  dependent  upon  the  cour.>e  pur- 
sued by  the  United  States  in  regard  to  the  Berlin 
decree  and  other  invasion  of  neutral  rights  by  France. 
On  the  24th  of  July,  i8o6.the  American  ministers 
proposed  to  Mr.  Cannin^^  the  British  secretary  of 
foreign  affairs,  a  renewal  of  the  negotiation,  and  sub- 
mitted to  him  the  alterations  which  were  desired. 
Their  pacific  advances  met  with  an  unexpected,  if 
not  rude,  repuhe.  The  English  minister  justified  the 
reservation  made  as  to  the  attitude  of  the  United 
States  towards  France;  contended  that  the  subject 
of  impressment  of  British  seamen  from  merchant 
vessels  formed  no  part  of  the  treaty;  protested  against 
a  practice,  which  he  said  was  "altogether  unusual 
in  the  political  transactions  of  states,  by  which  the 
American  government  assumes  to  itself  the  privilege 
of  altering  or  reversing  agreements  concluded  and 
signed  in  its  behalf  by  its  agents  duly  authorized 
for  that  purpose;  of  retaining  so  much  of  those  agree- 
ments as  mav  be  favorable  to  its  own  views,  and  of 
rejecting  such  stipulations  or  parts  of  stipulations,  as 
are  conceived  to  be  not  sufficiently  beneficial  to 
America,"  and  declared  that,  under  the  circumstances, 
the  proposal  to  renew  negotiations  was  wholly  iit- 
admi«<sible.  He  seems  to  have  ignored  or  been 
ignorant  of  the  fact  that  the  constitution  of  the 
United  Slates  required  that  every  treaty  should  be 
approved  by  the  American  Senate  before  it  became, 
obligatory,  and  that  the  practice  which  he  so  decid- 
edly condemned,  had  been  adopted  by  his  own 
country  with  regard  to  an  objectionable  article 
in  t.ie  treaty  of  1794.     Prior  to  this,  the   people  of 


3» 


POLITICAL    CONTROVERSIES 


'<  I 


the  United  States  had  become  greatly  excited  by 
the  forcible  abduction,  by  a  superior  British  force,  of 
several  sailors  from  an  American  national  ship,  the 
Chesapeake,  near  the  Capes  of  Virginia.  The  vessel 
immediately  returned  to  Hampton  roads  and  the 
President  issued  a  proclamation  interdicting  all  inter- 
course with  British  armed  vessels,  and  prohibiting 
their  entrance  into  the  waters  of  the  United  States. 
He  also  ordered  such  preparations  of  defense  as  the 
occasion  seemed  to  require.  Prompt  demand  was 
made  upon  the  British  government  for  reparation  of 
this  gross  outrage  upon  international  law,  but  it  was 
not  obtained,  as  we  shall  hereafter  see,  until  after  long 
and  irritating  delay. 

At  this  period,  in  their  implacable  warfare  upon 
each  other,  both  England  and  France  trampled  with 
iron  heel  and  totally  disregarded  the  rights  of  neu- 
tral nations.  The  battle  of  Trafalgar  annihilated  the 
combined  fleets  of  France  and  Spain,  and  on  the  i6th 
of  May  1806,  all  the  principal  ports  of  the  French 
empire,  with  a  long  extent  of  sea  coast,  were  de- 
clared under  actual  blockade  by  the  British  govern- 
ment. By  way  of  retaliation,  Napolean  issued  from 
the  conquered  capital  of  Prussia,  his  famous  Berlin 
decree,  dated  November  26,1806,  declaring  the  Brit- 
ish isles  in  a  state  of  blockade  and  that  all  merchan- 
dise belonging  to  England  or  the  produce  of  her 
manufactories  or  colonies,  although  the  property  of 
neutrals,  should  be  lawful  prize  on  land. 

On  the  I  ith  of  November,  1806,  the  British  Gov- 
ernment by  orders  in  council,  prohibited  all  o*  ect 
trade  from  Ankerica  to  any  port  of  Europe  at  'ar 
with  Great  Britain,  or  which  excluded  the  British 


UNITED    STATES      GREAT    BRITAIN. 


39 


flag,  but  permitted  goods  to  be  landed  in  England 
and  after  payment  of  duties  to  be  re-exported  to 
European  ports. 

As  if  the  Berlin  decree  was  not  sufficiently  ex- 
tensive to  counteract  the  orders  in  council,  Bonaparte 
on  the  17th  of  December  following,  issued  his  Milan 
decree,  which  denationalized  and  subjected  to  seiz- 
ure and  condemnation,  every  vessel  which  should 
touch  at  a  British  port,  or  pay  an  impost  to  the 
British  government,  or  submit  to  be  searched  by  a 
British  man  of  war. 

While  the  potent  European  belligerents  were 
engaged  in  this  maritime  warfare  which  threatened 
the  commerce  of  the  United  States  with  utter  ex- 
tinction, and  anterior  to  the  issuing  of  the  last  order  in 
council  and  the  Milan  decree,  the  President  convoked 
Congress  with  a  view  of  taking  action  upon  the 
critical  and  alarming  state  of  public  affairs.  On  the 
27th  of  October,  1807,  he  transmitted  a  message  in 
which,  as  related  to  Great  Britain,  he  reviewed  in 
plain  and  forcible  language  the  history  of  American 
wrongs.  He  alluded  to  the  injuries  and  depreda- 
tions committed  upon  the  American  commerce  and 
navigation  during  many  years,  to  the  disregard  of 
international  law  which  accompanied  them,  and  to 
the  well  known  circumstances  which  had  induced  the 
extraordinary  mission  to  London.  The  instructions^ 
under  which  this  mission  was  to  act,  he  said  were 
framed  in  the  sinccrestspirit  of  amity  and  modera- 
tion, aimed  at  a  settlement  of  all  points  of  difference 
and  the  placing  of  our  commercial  intercourse  on 
conditions  of  some  equality;  that  unable  to  obtain 
such  arrangements  as  were  within  their  instructions. 


!^! 


40 


POLirrC  AL    CONTROVERSIES 


the  ministers  concluded  to  sign  such  a  treaty  as  they 
could  obtain,  candidly  declaring  to  the  British  nego- 
tiators that  they  were  exceeding  their  instructions, 
and  that  consequently  their  government  could  not 
be  pledged  to  its  ratification.  In  his  opinion,  said 
the  President,  the  treaty  was  too  clearly  disadvan- 
tageous to  be  approved — that,  anxious  for  friendly 
adjustment,  further  concessions  were  authorized,  and 
the  ministers  were  instructed  to  resume  negotia- 
tions,— that  while  reposing  in  confidence  upon  a  sat- 
isfactory result,  from  this  new  reference  to  amicable 
discussion,  the  frigate  Chesapeake,  on  the  22dof  the 
preceding  June,  while  leaving  port  for  distant  service, 
was  attacked  by  order  of  the  British  admiral  by  one 
of  those  vessels  which  had  been  lying  in  our  harbors, 
under  the  indulgences  of  hospitality,  was  disabled 
from  prosecuting  her  voyage,  had  several  of  her 
crew  killed  and  four  taken  away,  and  that  this  out- 
rage had  been  indignantly  condemned  by  the  Ameri- 
can people  with  an  emphasis  and  unanimity  never 
exceeded.  After  adverting  to  some  precautionary 
measures,  which  he  deemed  it  proper  to  adopt,  and 
to  the  demand  which  the  American  ministers  at 
London  were  instructed  to  make  for  the  Chesapeake 
affair,  he  says  "the  aggression  thus  began  has 
been  continued  on  the  part  of  British  commanders, 
by  remaining  within  our  waters  in  defiance  of  the 
authority  of  the  country,  by  habitual  violations  of 
its  jurisdiction,  and  at  length  by  putting  to  death 
one  of  the  persons  whom  they  had  forcibly  taken 
from  on  board  the  Chesapeake." 

He  assailed  the  maritime  policy  of  Great  Britain, 
under  which  he  declared  that  the  American  trade 


UNITED    STATES-GREAT     BRITAIN.       41 


on  the    Mediterranean   had   been  swept  away  and 
was  threatened  with  the  same  fate  in  other  seas. 

To  secure  American  cargoes  and  vessels  from 
the  destruction  to  which  they  were  exposed  by  the 
unjustifiable  course  of  Great  Britain  and  France  and 
in  the  hope  that  the  suspension  of  commerce  with 
these  powers  would  induce  them  to  abandon  their 
disregard  of  neutral  rights,  Congress  responded  to 
the  President's  message  by  the  passage  of  what  is 
known  as  the  Embargo  Art,  which  restrained  Ameri- 
can vessels  from  sailing  for  foreign  ports,  prohibited 
foreign  vessels  from  taking  out  cargoes  and  re- 
quired coasting  vessels  to  land  their  cargoes  in  the 
United  States.  Measures  were  also  adopted  for  de- 
fending the  country  in  the  event  of  war. 

At  this  period  of  public  exasperation,  and  while 
Congress  was  in  session,  Mr.  Rose  arrived  as  special 
minister  from  Great  Britain  with  the  avawed  object 
of  adjusting  the  Chesapeake  affair.  As  a  preliminary 
step,  pursuant  to  his  instructions,  he  demanded  that 
the  President's  proclamation,  excluding  British  ves-^ 
sels  of  war  from  the  harbors  of  the  United  States, 
should  be  revoked,  and  this  not  being  conceded,  he 
immediately  re-embarked  for  England. 

The  President  was  authorized  to  suspend  the 
Embargo  Act  upon  the  occurrence  of  certain  events, 
and  Mr.  Pinkney  informed  the  British  minister  that 
if  Great  Britain  would  rescind  her  orders  in  council 
in  relation  to  the  United  States,  trade  would  be  re- 
newed with  her,  and  continue  closed  to  her  enemy 
if  his  decrees  were  not  also  abrogated. 

The  British  government  rejected  this  offer,  and 
in  his  reply  in  September,  1808,  Mr.  Canning  stated 
6 


POLITICAL    C  ON  T  R O  V  K  R  S  1  K S 


that  the  application  to  the  French  government  hav- 
ing met  with  an  unfavorable  reception,  his  majesty 
Could  not  change  his  course;  that  as  a  measure  of 
hostility,  the  embargo  was  manifestly  unjust,  and 
that  the  party  originating  it  should  be  the  first  to 
make  redress.  ' 

As  a  measure  of  policy,  the  embargo  act  failed  to 
iicicomplish  all  that  its  friends  anticipated,  and,  while 
inflicting  a  severe  blow  upon  English  commerce,  it, 
at  the  same  time,  utterly  prostrated  American  in- 
dustries in  some  portions  of  the  United  States,  and 
prod"  "»d  great  discontent.  Besides  this,  it  was  fre- 
qt;c  '  'olated,  and  stimulated  an  extensive  illicit 
commerce  through  the  adjacent  English  provinces. 
Coiigress  WHS  therefore  induced  to  modify  the  act, 
by  whai  w^s  des'gnated  as  the  uon-intcrconrse  /aw, 
which  repealed  the  embargo  act  as  to  all  nations  ex- 
cept France  and  Great  Britain.  Led  astray  by  the 
representations  of  Mr.  Erskine,  the  British  minister 
at  Washington,  Mr.  Madison,  the  successor  of  Jeffer- 
son, expressed  in  a  special  message  in  May,  18C9, 
his  great  satisfaction  at  the  commencement  of  a  favor- 
able change  in  our  foreign  relations.  He  stated  that 
the  ministers  at  London  and  Paris  were  instructed 
to  notify  the  respective  governments  of  the  authority 
vested  in  the  executive  to  renew  commercial  inter- 
Course,  and  that  the  Briti.sh  government,  relying  up- 
on the  conciliatory  disposition  of  the  United  States, 
and  anticipating  the  effects  of  the  laws,  which  placed 
the  two  belligerent  powers  on  a  footing  of  equal  re- 
strictions, had  given  provisional  instructions  to  their 
legation  in  the  United  States,  to  offer  satisfaction 
for  the  attack  oh  the  frigate  Chesapeake,  to  communi- 


m 


UNITED    STATES      GREAT     HRITAIN. 


43 


cate  the  determination  of  his  Britannic  majesty  to 
send  an  envoy  extraordinary  with  powers  to  settle 
by  treaty  all  controverted  points,  and  also,  in  the 
belief  that  intercourse  would  be  renewed  with  Great 
Britain,  to  signify  a  willingness  to  withdraw  the  or- 
ders in  council. 

Confiding  in  such  assurances,  the  President  is- 
sued a  proclamation  renewing  commercial  inter^ 
course  between  the  two  countries  on  the  tenth  of 
the  following  month,  but  this  action  was  soon  re^ 
versed,  as  the  British  government  disavowed  the 
action  of  their  minister,  Mr,  Erskine,  as  beyond  his 
instructions.  This  he  admitted  in  a  letter  to  his 
government,  but  in  justification,  said  "that  nothing 
would  have  induced  me  to  deviate,  in  any  degree, 
from  the  orders  I  had  received,  but  a  thorough  con^ 
viction  that  by  ?o  doing  I  should  accomplish  the 
object  which  his  majesty  had  in  view;  when  by  too 
strictly  adhering  to  the  letter  of  my  instructions,  I 
might  lose  the  opportunity  of  promoting  essential- 
ly his  majesty's  interests  and  wishes." 

He  was  soon  recalled  and  was  succeeded  near 
the  close  of  the  year  1809  by  Mr.  Jackson,  whose 
correspondence  soon  became  so  extreipely  offensive, 
that  the  Secretary  of  state  was  directed  by  the  Presi- 
dent to  discontinue  communicating  with  him,  and, 
upon  representations  made  to  his  government,  he 
was  recalled  without  censure  or  apology. 

Congress,  which  convened  in  November,  1809, 
heartily  approved  the  course  of  the  Executive  to-^ 
wards  the  British  envoy,  denounced  the  language  of 
his  official  letters  as  indecorous  and  insolent,  and 
resolved,  with  the  whole  force  of  the  nation  if  neces- 


44 


P  O  L  I T  I  C  A  L    C  O  N  T  K  O  V  E  U  S  I  E  S 


sary,  to  repel  such  insults  and  to  assert  and  maintain 
the  national  rights,  honor,  and  interests. 

The  relations  of  the  t\vo  countries  continued  in 
an  inimical  and  unsettled  state,  and  the  American 
minister  at  London,  having  failed  in  his  efforts  to 
procure  a  satisfactory  arrangement  of  the  questions 
in  controversy,  was  recalled  early  in  i8il,  and  vvas 
succeeded  by  Mr.  Russell.  In  the  course  of  this  year, 
however,  through  the  action  of  Mr.  Foster,  the  Brit- 
ish minister  at  Washington,  the  long  pending  con- 
troversy about  the  Chesapeake  affair  was  adjusted. 
The  British  government  disavowed  the  attack,  had 
recalled  the  officer  in  command  at  the  time  on  the 
American  const,  and  stipulated  that  the  men  taken 
from  the  Chesapeake  should  be  restored,  and  that 
suitable  pecuniary  provision  should  be  made  for 
those  who  suffered  in  the  attack,  and  for  the  families 
of  the  seamen  who  fell.  But  no  relajiatioTi  or  dis- 
continuance of  her  maritime  policy  could  be  obtained. 
On  the  14th  of  February,  18 12,  Mr.  Russell  wrote  to 
the  American  Secretary  of  state,  that  up  to  that 
time  there  had  been  no  indication  of  a  disposition  to 
rescind  the  British  orders  in  council c\\\^  on  the  fourth 
of  March  following,  he  wrote  that  the  debates  in 
parliament  indicated  an  inflexible  determination  on 
the  part  of  the  ministry  to  persevere  in  them  *'  with^ 
out  modification  or  relaxation;"  and  that  Mr.  Perce* 
val  declared  that,  "as  England  was  contending  for 
the  defence  of  her  maritime  rights  and  the  preserva- 
tion of  her  national  existence,  which  efssehtially  de- 
pended on  the  maintenance  of  those  rights,  she 
could  not  be  expected,  in  the  prosecution  of  this 
great  and  primary  ihterest,  to  arrest  and  vary  her 


t)Nrrii:D    i^TATES  -ORE  At    HRlTAlJ^.       4J 


Course,  to  listen  to  the  pretensions  of  neutral  nations 
or  to  remove  the  evils  however  they  might  be  re- 
gretted, which  the  imperious  policy  of  the  times  in- 
directly and  unintentionally  extended  to  them." 

The  American  minister  added,  *'  I  no  longer  en* 
tertain  a  hope  that  we  can  honorably  avoid  war." 

The  inflexible  determination  evinced  by  the 
British  government  at  this  time  to  persist  in  her  of* 
fensive  treatment  of  neutral  commerce  and  the  steadi- 
ness with  which  she  carried  out  her  policy  of  im- 
pressment, seemed  fully  to  confirm  the  opinioft  ex* 
pressed  by  Mr.  Russell.  The  United  States  had 
vainly  attempted  to  procure  a  redress  of  grievances» 
Kfforts  for  the  security  of  American  commerce  were 
met  by  the  pretence  that  England  was  justified  by 
the  conduct  of  France  and  the  imperious  necessities 
arising  out  of  the  European  war.  To  the  claim  for  the 
immunity  of  American  seamen,  It  was  replied  that 
allegiance  could  not  be  severed  by  any  exigency  of 
life,  that,  once  a  subject  always  a  subject— and  that 
to  secure  his  services  to  his  sovereign,  British  ves- 
sels upon  the  high  seas  could  lawfully  and  forci- 
bly enter  the  merchant  vessels  of  every  other  nation. 
This  broad  doctrine  was  liable  to  monstrous  abuse, 
nnd  had  been  applied  not  merely  to  merchant  ves- 
sels, but  in  one  instance  to  a  national  vessel^  the 
Chesapeake  ;  and  not  only  to  those  claimed  as  Brit- 
ish subjects,  but  had  been  extended  to  a  wanton  ab- 
duction from  American  vessels,  of  Swedish,  Portu- 
gese and  Danish  sailors.t'J    - t  - 


[I]  Note. — The  practice  of  impressnwht  by  Creat  Bfitain  Jiatl  been  a  source 
of  constant  and  uniiiterriipted  irritation  to  the  United  States  As  early  as  Sept.  10th 
Use,  Mk.'Pickei-ingv  Secretary  of  state,  in  an  official  i.'tter  to  Mr.  King,  the  American 
iniimter  «n:  liondgoi/'thiis  referred  to  it.     "  For  the  British  govtrnment  then,  to  niaktl 


'     I 


^ 


pOt^ITICAL    CONTROVERSIES 


t ' 


The  patience  and  forbearance  of  the  American 
people  were  at  last  exhausted,  and  on  the  i8th  of 
June,  1812,  congress  declared  war  against  Great 
Britain.  Prior  to  this,  President  Madison  had  trans- 
mitted a  confidential  message  to  congress,  in  which 
he  reviewed  the  conduct  of  Great  Britain.  In  his 
enumeration  of  wrongs,  he  said:  ''British  cruisers 
have  been  in  the  continued  practice  of  violating  the 
American  flag  on  the  great  highway  of  nations,  and 
seizing  and  carrying  off  persons  sailing  under  it, 
not  in  exercise  of  a  belligerent  right  founded  on  the 
law  of  nations  against  an  enemy,  but  of  a  municipal 
prerogative  over  British  subjects,"  that  against  this 
crying  enormity,  remonstrance  and  expostulations 
had  been  fruitless,  and  to  remove  every  pretext  for 

profetiions  of  respect  to  the  righo  of  our  citizens  and  willingness  to  release  them, 
and  yet  deny  (he  only  means  of  ascertaining  those  rights,  is  an  insulting  tantalism." 
On  the  9th  of  December,  1799,  he  reported  to  congress,  that  "Admiral  Parker  paid 
no  attention  to  the  agent's  application  on  behalt  of  our  impressed  seamen;  the  ad- 
miral having  determined  and  informed  the  agent  of  the  determination  that  no 
proofs  would  be  regarded  by  him  unless  specially  presented  by  the  American  gov- 
ernment through  the  British  minieter,  nor  then  but  in  the  single  case  of  native 
Americans. " 

Mr.  King  wrote  to  the  Secretary  of  State,  that  between  the  IHth  of  April,  1T9T 
and  the  preceding  July,  he  had  applied  for  the  discharge  of  two  hnndred  and  sev- 
enty-one impressed  seamen:  that  the  admiralty  had  ordered  eighty-six  |o  be  dis- 
charged, thirty-seven  to  be  detained  9s  British  subjects,  or  as  American  volunteers, 
and  had  made  no  answer  with  regard  to  one  hudred  and  forty-one,  the  vessels  in 
which  they  were  detained  having  in  many  instances  sailed  before  an  examination 
was  made. 

On  the  15th  of  March,  1799,  he  wrote  that  all  Danish,  Swedish  and  other  for- 
eign seamen,  who  could  not  receive  American  protection,  were  indiscriminately  ta- 
ken from  voluntary  service  in  American  neutral  vess^els  and  forced  into  the  war  in 
the  naval  service  of  Great  Britain. 

Mr.  Dallas,  secretary  of  the  treasury  of  the  United  States  in  1814,  estimated 
that  prior  to  1812,  not  less  than  six  thousand  mariners  who  claimed  to  be  citizen.t 
of  the  United  States,  and  who  were  denied  all  opportunity  to  veiify  their  claims, 
were  impressed  from  the  ciews  of  American  merchant  vessels.  He  declared  that 
every  appeal  to  the  magnanimity  of  Great  Britain  had  been  unavailing;  that  she 
had  seized  and  confiscated  the  commitrcial  property  of  American  citizefis  to  an 
incalculable  amount,  and  in  conjunction  with  France  had  placed  a  large  portion  of 
the  globe  in  astate  of  lilockade,  chasing  the  American  merchant  flag  from  the  ocean. 


UNITED    STATES-GREAT    BRITAIN. 


47 


its  contmuance,  assurances  were  formally  given  of 
the  readiness  of  the  United  States  "to  enter  into 
such  arrangements  as  could  not  be  rejected  if  the 
recovery  of  British  subjects  were  the  real  and  sole 
object."  but  this  proposition  had  been  useless.  Brit- 
ish cruisers  had  been  guilty,  he  said  of  the  most  law- 
less proceedings  within  American  harbors,  and  the 
British  government  when  called  upon  to  punish  the 
commanders  had  bestowed  upon  them  additional 
marks  of  honor  and  confidence, — that  under  the  pre- 
tended blockades  American  commerce  had  been 
plundered  in  every  sea,  and  a  destructive  blow  aimed 
at  the  agricultural  and  maritime  interests  of  the 
country;  and  that  the  cabinet  of  Great  Britain  had 
finally  resorted  to  a  sweeping  system  of  blockades, 
under  the  name  of  orders  in  council^  which  had  been 
moulded  and  managed  as  best  suited  their  political 
views  and  their  commercial  jealousies,  or  the  avidity 
of  British  cruisers.  After  adverting  to  the  various 
measures  of  redress,  which  had  been  resorted  to; 
these,  he  said,  had  no  effect  but  to  encourage  per*- 
severance  and  enlarge  pretension  while  our  sea-faring 
citizens  were  daily  victims  of  lawless  violence  on  the 
common  highway  of  nations,  sometimes  within  sight 
of  the  country  which  owed  them  protection;  that  our 
vessels,  freighted  with  the  products  of  our  soil  or  the 
proceeds  of  them,  were  diverted  from  their  lawful 
destinations,  were  confiscated  by  prize  courts,  the 
mere  instruments,  not  of  public  laW,  but  of  arbitrary 
edicts  and  their  unfortunate  crews  dispersed  and 
lost,  or  impressed  or  inveigled  into  British  fleets; 
that  these  aggressions  were  defended  by  arguments 
which  would  equally  support  a  claim  to  regulate  our 


i<  1 


4« 


POLITICAL    C  O  N  T  K  O  V  K  R  S  I  K  S 


I     I 

i     I 


1      i: 


r     I 


external  commerce;  and  that  the  conduct  of  Great 
Britain  placed  her  in  a  state  of  war  against  the 
United  States,  while  the  latter  occupied  a  state  of 
peace  towards  her. 

The  President,  undoubtedly,  expressed  the  feel- 
ings and  opinions  of  the  great  mass  of  the  America*^ 
people,  and  while  some  may  have  still  indulj^. 
hopes  of  a  pacific  adjustment,  a  large  majority  de- 
cided that  the  cup  of  humiliation  had  been  exhaust- 
ed, and  that  the  path  of  honor  and  real  indepen- 
dence could  now  only  be  opened  and  maintained  by 
the  sword.  But  almost  simultaneously  with  the  de- 
claration of  war,  advances  were  made  in  the  direc- 
tion of  peace,  and  instructions  were  forwarded  to 
Mr.  Russel,  the  American  representative  in  London, 
to  propose  an  armistice  upon  the  condition  and  with 
the  understanding  that  the  orders  in  cou»\cil  we  ^ 
repealed  without  the  substitution  of  illegal  bio 
ades;  that  impressment  was  abandoned  and  Ameri- 
can seamen  ordered  to  be  discharged  from  British 
ships;  and  that  the  exclusion  of  the  seamen  of  each 
nation  from  the  ships  of  the  other,  should  be  stipu- 
lated. 

These  propositions  were  declared  by  the  British 
government  "  as  being  on  various  grounds  absolute- 
ly inadmissible."  Five  days  before  the  declaration 
of  war,  and  before  it  was  known  in  England,  the  or^ 
ders  in  council  had,  however,  been  rescinded.  This 
action  was  attributed  by  the  Prince  Regent,  to  the 
annulment  by  the  French  government  of  the  Berlin 
and  Milan  decrees  so  far  as  they  effected  the  United 
States,  but  about  the  same  time  the  British  minister 
at  Washington,  in  a  communication  to  the  secretary 


UNITED    STATES- GREAT    BRITAIN.       49 


of  state,  had  declared  that  such  were  the  obligations 
of  Great  Britain  to  her  allies,  that  the  orders  in 
council  would  not  be  rescinded  without  a  revocation 
of  the  French  edicts  as  to  the  whole  world,  and  a 
similar  opinion  had  been  previously  expressed  by 
the  Prince  Regent,  and  yet  without  such  total  revo- 
cation, the  British  position  so  long  and  inflexibly 
adhered  to,  was  unexpectedly  abandoned.  In  the 
United  States,  this  action  was  attributed  to  different 
motives.  It  followed  closely  upon  the  disclosures 
made  by  a  parliamentary  im-^uiry  as  to  the  effects 
of  the  American  non-intercourse  law  upon  British 
industries,  then  greatly  depressed,  and  Mr.  Clay, 
then  a  prominent  American  statesman,  in  a  speech 
in  congress,  declared  that  the  whole  world  knew 
that  the  repeal  of  the  orders  was  due  to  that  inquiry 
or  to  the  warlike  attitude  of  the  United  States,  or 
to  both. 

On  the  8th  of  March,  18 13,  the  Russian  minister 
at  Washington  proffered  the  mediation  of  his  gov- 
ernment with  the  view  of  effecting  peace.  The  of- 
fer was  promptly  accepted  by  the  United  States  but 
was  rejected  by  Great  Britain.  On  the  fourth  of 
November,  however,  the  British  government  offered 
to  open  a  direct  negotiation,  which  was  agreed  to, 
and  Gottenburg,  in  Sweden,  was  fixed  upon  as  the' 
place  in  which  to  conduct  it.  The  British  govern- 
ment was  informed  that  the  United  States  would 
lose  no  time  in  carrying  it  into  effect,  and  John  Q. 
Adams,  James  A.  Bayard,  Henry  Clay,  Jonathan 
Russel  and  Albert  Gallatin,  were  immediately  ap* 
pointed  as  envoys,  and  arrived  at  Gottenburg  on  the 
iith  of  April,  1814.  Great  Britain  deferred  the  ap- 
7 


50 


POLITICAL    CONTROVERSIES 


pointment  of  envoys  until  formally  informed  of  the 
arrival  of  those  of  the  United  States,  and  then  pro- 
posed to  transfer  the  negotiation  to  Ghent,  which 
was  assented  to,  although  causing  delay.  Here  the 
American  envoys  arrived  on  the  24th  of  June,  but 
were  kept  in  a  mortifying  state  of  suspense  until  the 
arrival  of  the  British  envoys  on  the  6th  of  August. 
The  negotiations,  which  followed,  continued  until 
the  31st  of  October,  the  date  of  the  last  dispatch, 
and  a  treaty  was  finally  signed  on  the  24th  of  De- 
cember, 18 14.  While  the  American  commissioners 
were  intent  upon  the  prosecution  of  the  objects  of 
their  mission,  the  British  government  and  its  agents 
manifested  no  haste  in  bringing  the  negotiations  to 
a  close. 

The  colossal  power  of  Napoleon,  in  his  Russian 
campaign,  had  received  a  blow,  which  was  succeed- 
ed by  his  immediate  and  complete  overthrow.  The 
pacification  of  Europe  which  followed  in  March, 
18 14,  relieved  England  from  the  gigantic  efforts 
which  she  had  been  compelled  to  put  forth  in  the 
continental  struggle,  and  left  her  free  to  direct  them 
against  her  trans-atlantic  enemy.  The  more  suc- 
cessful in  this  direction,  the  better  and  more  com- 
manding the  position  to  dictate  terms  of  peace. 
The  longer  the  negotiations  were  protracted,  the 
greater  the  opportunity  to  mature  and  accomplish 
plans  by  which  the  conquests  of  war  would  second 
the  arguments  of  diplomacy.  While  the  negotia- 
tions were  pending,  the  British  cabinet  was  actively 
and  zealously  occupied  in  pouring  the  disengaged 
veterans  of  Wellington  into  the  United  States. 
With  them,  they  reenforced  the  English  army  upon 


■■HM 


UNITED    STATES    -GREAT    BRITAIN. 


5» 


the  Canadian  frontier.  They  fitted  out  three  expe- 
ditions upon  a  large  scale;  one  intended  for  invasion 
from  the  north  by  the  way  of  Lake  Champlain;  an- 
other for  an  inroad  upon  the  center  with  the  nation- 
al capital  and  the  city  of  Baltimore  as  objective 
points,  and  the  third  destined  for  the  capture  of" 
New  Orleans  and  the  anticipated  mastery  of  the 
Mississippi  river.  -  :  .  j  .  • 

.  The  hard  fought  and  sanguinary  battle  of  Niag- 
ara on  the  25th  of  July,  18 14,  had  evinced  that  the 
troops  of  the  United  States  were  not  inferior  to  the 
British  veterans  in  obstinate  bravery,  and  the  subse- 
quent signal  defeat  of  the  northern  British  invading 
army  at  Plattsburg ;  the  comparatively  fruitless 
result  of  the  expedition  against  the  center;  and 
the  disastrous  movement  against  New  Orleans  un- 
developed; all  tended  to  modify  the  expectations 
and  tone  of  the  British  diplomatists. 

Had  these  expeditions  turned  out  as  anticipated 
and  the  lofty  expectationsof  the  British  government 
and  the  British  people  been  attained,  terms  would 
doubtless  have  been  insisted  upon,  that  would  have 
been  rejected  by  the  United  States  and  have  ren- 
dered negotiations  abortive.  The  people  of  Eng- 
land, exasperated  by  the  tone  of  the  public  press, 
upon  the  pacification  of  Europe,  seemed  to  breathe 
only  of  war  and  punishment.  Mr.  Gallatin,  who 
had  been  opposed  to  the  v/ar,  but  who  had  been  se- 
lected as  one  of  the  peace  commissioners,  wrote 
from  Europe  on  the  13th  of  June,  1814,  to  the  Amer- 
ican Secretary  of  state,  that  the  British  ministry,  to 
use  their  own  language,  mean  to  inflict  on  America 
a  chastisement  that  will  teach  her  that  war  is  not  to 


11 


POLITICAL    CONTROVERSIES 


be  declared  against  Great  Britain  with  impunity; 
that  such  was  the  general  sentiment  of  the  nation; 
that  he  was  convinced,  under  the  existing  unpropi- 
tious  circumstances  of  the  world,  a  continuance  of 
the  war  would  not  compel  Great  Britain  to  yield 
any  maritime  points  in  dispute,  and  particularly  to 
agree  to  any  satisfactory  arrangement  on  the  sub- 
ject of  impressment,  and  that  the  most  favorable 
terms  to  be  expected  would  be  the  status  before  the 
war,  and  the  postponement  of  the  questions  of  blockf- 
dde,  impressment  and  all  other  points  which  in  time 
of  European  peace  are  not  particularly  injurious. 
The  London  Courier,  the  official  paper,  when  the 
extensive  English  expeditions  were  well  on  their 
way,  on  the  first  of  August, said:  "Now  that  America 
is  stripped  of  all  hope  of  assistance,  now  that  the 
Corsican  is  annihilated,  the  same  commission  of  ne- 
gotiators may  at  last  be  earnest  if  they  are  provided 
with  sufficient  powers.  But,  however  magnanimous 
it  may  be  in  the  Regent  to  declare  his  wish  for 
peace,  on  terms  honorable  to  both  parties,  we  hope 
it  will  not  be  made  on  tQnns  equally  honorable  to 
both  parties.  Let  the  guilty  pay  some  forfeit  for 
their  offence.  We  look  rather  to  the  prosecution 
of  the  war  with  vigor."  y 

The  Times  newspaper  declared  that  "peace  can 
nowhere  be  properly  made  but  in  America.  The 
conferences  must  be  carried  on  at  New  York  or 
Philadelphia,  having  previously  fixed  there  the  head- 
quarters of  a  Picton  or  a  Hill"  that  "now  that  the 
tyrant  Bonaparte  has  been  consigned  to  infamy, 
there  is  no  feeling  stronger  in  this  country  than  in- 
dignation against  the  Americans."     ''The  war,"  said 


UNITED    STATES-GREAT    BRITAIN.       53 


Cobbett,  "is  almost  universally  popular.  It  is  the 
war  of  the  Times  and  Courier,  The  press  has 
worked  up  the  people  to  the  war  pitch,  and  there  it 
keeps  them." .    • 

While  the  war  spirit  of  the  British  people  was 
thus  excited  to  fever  heat,  the  congress  at  Ghent 
had  their  first  conference  on  the  8th  of  August,  18 14, 
when  an  exchange  of  powers  took  place,  and  the 
British  negotiators  advanced,  as  unalterable  condi- 
tions, their  demands  with  regard  to  the  Indians  and 
boundarie  5.  On  the  19th  of  August,  they  demanded 
in  addition  to  previous  claims,  the  undivided  con- 
trol of  the  northern  lakes,  with  a  surrender  of  large 
territory  with  the  fisheries,  and  the  navigation  of 
the  Mississippi.  The  American  negotiators  advised 
their  government  that  to  these  oemands  they  should 
give  a  unanimous  and  decided  negative.  On  the 
next  day,  Mr.  Gallatin  wrote  to  Mr.  Dallas:  "Oi.r 
negotiations  may  be  considered  at  an  end.  Some 
official  notes  may  yet  pass,  but  the  nature  of  the  de- 
mands of  the  British,  made  also  as  a  preliminary 
sine  qua  non  to  be  admitted  as  a  basis  before  a  dis- 
cussion, is  such  that  there  can  be  no  doubt  of  a 
speedy  rupture  of  our  conferences,  and  that  we  will 
have  no  peace.  Great  Britain  wants  war  in  order  to 
cripple  us;  she  wants  aggrandizement  at  our  ex- 
pense. She  may  have  ulterior  objects;  no  resource 
is  left  but  in  union  and  vigorous  prosecution  of  the 
war."  Before  this  information  of  the  state  of  the 
negotiations  was  received,  and  while  the  result  was  in 
doubt,  the  President  convoked  congress  on  the  14th 
of  September,  and  in  his  message,  adverted  to  the 
changed  condition  of  Fiurope,  which  withdrew  occa- 


Si 


§4 


FCTLITICAL    CaN^TKaVER'SIES 


«ion  for  the  imprressment  of  American  seamen,  and 
which,  with  the  repeal  of  the  orders  in  council^  sug- 
gested expectations  of  peace;  on  the  other  hand, 
the  refusal  of  the  mediation  of  the  emperor  of  Rus- 
sia, delays  in  giving  effect  to  her  own  proposal  for 
direct  negotiation,  and  the  principles  avowed  and 
the  manner  in  which  the  war  was  now  carried  on, 
he  said,  gave  reason  to  infer  that  Great  Britain  was 
animated  by  a  more  violent  spirit  than  ever  against 
the  rights  and  prosperity  of  the  United  States. 
Whatever  should  be  the  result  of  negotiations,  he 
had  convoked  congress  to  be  ready  to  adopt  meas- 
ures adapted  to  either  peace  or  war.  The  advices: 
soon  received  from  the  American  commissioners, 
seemed  to  destroy  all  expectations  of  peace;  the  ar- 
rogant demands  of  the  British  negotiators  aroused 
fierce  and  universal  indignation,  and  the  military 
ardor  of  the  country,  stimulated  by  recent  successes, 
was  carried  to  the  highest  pitch.  While  public  opin- 
ion was  taking  this  direction  in  the  United  States; 
unexpected  military  reverses  and  great  industrial 
depression  set  it  in  the  opposite  direction  in  Great 
Britain.  American  victories  had  dissipated  the  illu- 
sion of  extensive  conquests,  if  they  did  not  greatly 
jeopardize  English  colonial  possessions.  English 
manufactories  and  other  industries  greatly  need- 
ed the  fostering  influence  of  national  tranquil- 
ity. Parliament  began  to  resound  with  censures  of 
a  war  of  conquest  and  the  voice  of  commerce  began 
to  be  loudly  heard  on  the  side  which  demanded  an 
end  of  war  burdens.  * 

The  Prince  Regent  on    the    nth  of  November, 
expressed  his  regret  to  parliament  at  "the  large  ex- 


•DNITED    STATES-GREAT    BRITAIN.      3$ 


penditure  which  must  be  met  that  year,  the  waf 
still  subsisting  with  America,  renctering  the  contin- 
uance of  great  exertions  indlspensibfe."  The  anti- 
war spirit  immediately  manifested  itself  The  min- 
istry was  asked  if  the  Ghent  correspondence  with 
regard  to  tlic  demands  of  Great  Britain  was  authen- 
tic. Lord  Landsowne  was  willing,  he  said,  to  sup- 
port the  doctrine  of  perpetual  British  allegiance  and 
impressments,  but  not  a  war  for  conquest  or  terri- 
tory, for  the  lakes  or  Indians,  and  Mr.  Baring  de- 
clared that  no  man  in  England  could  expect  Amer- 
ica to  yield  to  British  pretensions,  when  England 
had  gained  no  advantage  over  her  in  the  war.  To 
inquiries  in  parliament,  the  chancellor  of  the  ex- 
chequer replied,  expressing  his  satisfaction  at  being 
able  to  say  that  the  conferences  at  Ghent  were  not 
broken  off.  The  sine  qua  non  propositions  of  the 
British  commissioners  on  the  19th  of  August  had 
nearly  produced  that  result,  as  the  American  com- 
missioners believing  that  the  high  tone  of  the  Brit» 
ish  overtures  precluded  all  hope  of  a  satisfactory  ad- 
justment, had  commenced  making  arrangements  in 
view  of  an  early  close  of  negotiations*  Disposed, 
however,  to  make  another  effort  for  a  successful  ter- 
mination, on  the  24th  of  August,  they  submitted  to 
the  British  commissioners  a  communication  in  which 
they  said:  "The  cause  of  war  between  the  United 
States  and  Great  Britain  having  disappeared  by  the 
maritime  pacification  of  Europe,  the  government  of 
the  United  States  does  not  desire  to  continue  it  in 
defense  of  abstract  principles,  which  have  for  the 
present,  ceased  to  have  any  practical  effect"  and 
that  they  had  been  "instructed  to  agree  to  its  ter- 


POLITICAL    CONTROVERSIES 


w 


m't 


mination,  both  parties  restoring  whatever  may  have 
been  taken,  and  both  resuming  all  their  rights  in  re- 
lation to  their  respective  seamen."  To  this  basis 
they  persistently  adhered,  encouraged  by  American 
victories,  and  the  British  envoys  at  last  acceded  to 
it,  influenced,  doubtless,  by  the  growing  unpopular- 
ity at  home  of  a  war  for  conquest,  with  possibly  the 
additional  motive  of  strengthening  the  attitude  of 
the  English  minister  at  the  congress  of  Vienna,  then 
in  session.  The  negotiation  thus  rescued  from  the 
peril  in  which  it  had  been  placed  by  sine  qua  non 
demands,  culminated  on  the  24th  of  December  in  a 
treaty,  which  was  duly  ratified  by  both  nations. 
-  During  the  negotiations,  the  American  commis- 
sioners had  proposed  stipulations  against  the  em- 
ployment of  Indian  allies  in  the  unfortunate  event  of 
future  war;f'i  against  impressment;  for  exclusion 
from  its  naval  service  of  seamen,  who  were  the  sub- 
jects or  citizens  of  the  other,  not  naturalized  within 
a  period  to  be  fixed,  and  for  the  enjoyment  of  cer- 
tain rights  by  the  neutral  vessels  of  the  one  party 
sailing  to  a  foreign  port  blockaded  by  the  other  in 


[2]  Note  In  the  wars  with  the  United  States,  Great  Britain  has  always  em- 
ployed the  merciless  Indians,  who  roam  her  North  American  territories  and  who  are 
alike  indifferent  to  the  laws  of  civilized  warfare  or  the  impulses  of  humanity.  Why 
then,  with  Indian  atrocities  fresh  in  their  memories,  did  the  English  negotiators  re- 
ftlse  to  exclude  them  as  future  alliest  Does  the  following  extract  from  the  diary  of 
Capt.  Marryat,  C.  B.,  of  the  British  Navy,  published  n  1839,  some  twenty-four 
years  after  the  conclusion  of  the  treaty,  give  the  explanation?  "But  there  is  anoth- 
er reason  why  a  war  between  the  two  count  les  is  so  much  to  be  deprecated,  which 
is,  that  it  must  ever  be  a  cruel  and  an  irritating  war.  To  attack  the  Americans  by 
invasion  will  always  be  hazardous,  and  must  ultimately  prove  disastrous.  In  what 
manner,  then,  is  England  to  avenge  any  aggression  that  may  be  committed  by  the 
Americans?  All  she  can  do  is  to  ravage,  burn  and  destroy,  to  carry  the  horrors  ot 
war  along  the^r  whole  extended  line  of  coast,  distressing  the  non  combatants,  and 
wreaking  >«ngeance  upon  th'-  defenceless.  Dreadful  to  contemplate  as  this  is,  and 
even  more  dreadful  the  system  of  stimulating  the  Indian  tribes  to  join  us,  adding 
scalping  and  murdering  of  women  and  children  toother  horrors,  still  it  is  the  only 


llll 


UNITED    STATES    -GREAT    BRITAIN. 


57 


ignorance  of  the  existence  of  war  or  of  such  block- 
ade, although  these^ropositions  were  rejected,  the 
treaty  was  received  with  general  favor  throughout 
the  United  States.  It  provided  for  a  universal 
peace;  for  the  decision  of  title  as  to  certain  islands 
in  Passamaquoddy  bay ;  for  the  adjustment  of  boun- 
daries, and  declared  the  slave  trade  irreconcilable 
with  the  principles  of  humanity  and  justice  and  that 
both  parties  would  continue  their  efforts  for  its  abol- 
ition. •  •:      ■    ■■\'  ■     ■'  •      .' 

It  met  with  a  less  favorable  reception  in  Eng- 
land. The  London  7/V;/^.s  considered  the  peace  due, 
as  much  to  European  necessity  as  American  disas- 
ters, and  said:  "Those  who  by  British  subsidies  and 
fortitude'  were  upheld  when  quailing  under  Bona- 
parte, desert  Great  Britain  retiring  from  the  contest 
with  the  stripes  of  Plattsburg,  and  Baltimore  bleed- 
ing upon  our  backs.^  There  is  scarcely  one  Ameri- 
can ship  that  has  not  to  boast  a  victory  over  the 
British  flag;  not  one  British  ship  in  thirty  or  forty 
that  can  boast  such  an  honor.  We  retire  from  the 
conflict  with  the  balance  of  defeat  so  heavily  against 
us;  that  is  our  complaint." 


method  to  which  England  could  resort  in  her  own  behalf.  Moreover,  in  case  of  a 
future  war,  England  must  not  allow  it  to  be  of  such  short  duratiort  a)  was  the  last. 
The  Americans  must  be  made  to  feel  it  by  its  being  protracted  until  their  conwnerce 
is  totally  annihilated  and  their  expenses  increased  in  proportion  with  the  decrease 
of  their  means.  Let  it  not  be  supposed  that  England  would  harrass  the  coasts  of 
America,  or  r.iise  the  Indian  tribes  against  her  from  any  feeling  of  malevolence  or 
any  pleasure  in  the  suffer! iigs  which  must  ensue.  It  would  be  from  the  knowledge 
of  the  fact  that  money  is  the  sinews  of  wair  and  consequently  that  by  obliging  the 
'  Americans  to  call  out  so  large  a  force  as  she  must  do  to  defend  her  coast  and  to  re- 
pel i'le  Indians,  she  would  be  put  to  such  an  enormous  expense,  as  would  be  severe- 
ly felt  throughout  the  Union,  and  soon  incline  all  parties  to  a  cessation  of  hostilities. 
It  is  to  touch  their  pockets  that  this  plan  must  and  wt'ii  be  resorted  to;  and  a  war 
carried  on  upon  that  plan  alone,  would  prove  a  salutary  lesson  to  a  young  and  too 
amhitiousapeople.*'— Vol.  3,  Page  78-8U. 


j.''Si3 


<4J 


-• 


■\    ■ 


8 


58 


POLITICAL    CONTROVERSIES 


li 


I 


On  the  29th  of  December,  the  Courier,  in  com- 
batting the  hostility  to  the  treaty,  said:  "But  those 
who  disapprove  of  the  treaty,  arpjue  as  if  our  naval 
reputation  had  been  blasted  by  the  war,  as  if  it  had 
received  an  almost  mortal  wound.  Again,  can  it 
not  be  easily  conceived  that  the  continuance  of  the 
war  with  America  might  have  an  effect  by  no  means 
favorable  at  Vienna?  That  it  might  prevent  us 
from  assuming  an  entire  freedom  of  attitude;  that 
many  representations  which  we  might  make  would 
have  less  effect  from  the  idea  that  our  attention  and 
force  were  chiefly  occupied  in  a  war  on  the  other 
side  of  the  Atlantic.  Let  it  be  recollected  that  we 
were  the  only  power  at  the  congress  engaged  in  war; 
that  all  the  rest  were  able  to  direct  their  whole  care 
to  the  business  of  negotiation  and  peace."  ' 

Whatever  motives  influenced  the  two  govern- 
ments, the  questions  held  in  abeyance,  have  not 
since  disturbed  the  friendly  relations  of  the  two 
countries. 

The  attempt  was  renewed  by  the  United  States  in 
1842,  during  the  negotiation  of  the  treaty  of  Wash- 
ington, to  have  the  long  contested  question  of  im- 
pressment settled  by  treaty.  Mr.  Webster,  the 
American  negotiator,  urged  the  subject  with  distin- 
guished ability  and  declared  that  his  government 
was  "prepared  to  say  that  the  practice  of  impressing 
seamen  from  American  vessels  cannot  be  allowed 
hereafter  to  take  place."  Lord  Ashburton,  the  Eng- 
lish envoy,  declined  entering  into  the  subject  as  for- 
eign to  the  object  of  his  mission.  He  referred  to 
the  opposite  principles  held  by  the  two  governments 
respecting  allegiance  to  the  sovereign,  his  own  hav- 


UNITED    STATES-GREAT    BRITAIN. 


59 


ing  held  for  all  time  that  it  was  indefeasible,  but 
while  declining  to  negotiate,  he  expressed  the  hope 
of  a  satisfactory  arrangement  in  the  future.  He 
frankly  and  clearly  expressed  the  views  entertained 
by  his  government  upon  this  subject.  These  had  been 
acted  upon  by  Great  Britain  during  the  early  days  of 
the  republic,  regardless  of  the  feelings  and  the  remon- 
strances of  the  American  people,  who  were  earnest- 
ly and  busily  engaged  in  recovering  from  the  deso- 
lating effects  of  the  revolutionary  war  and  in  consol- 
idating the  strength  and  advancing  the  prosperity 
of  the  nation. 

The  statesmen  of  that  period  fully  appreciated  the 
feelings,  the  anxiety  and  the  policy  with  which 
Washington,  Hamilton  and  their  compeers  sought 
to  avoid  war.  They  understood  the  importance  of 
peace,  and  were  unwilling  to  forego  its  evident  ad- 
vantages, except  under  extreme  circumstances. 
The  history  of  fruitless  embassy  after  embassy,  dis- 
patched to  London  to  adjust  and  reconcile  all  differ- 
ences, evinces  their  earnestness  and  sincerity  in  the 
pursuit  of  amicable  and  satisfactory  arrangements. 
The  question  of  impressment,  which  at  the  begin- 
ning of  the  century  had  proved  so  humiliating  and 
offensive  to  American  pride  and  sense  of  justice,  al- 
though the  current  of  events  had  rendered  it  practic- 
ally of  little  moment,  had  not  yet  been  placed  upon 
a  common  and  reciprocal  basis  by  the  joint  agree- 
ment of  the  two  governments.  The  significant  and 
positive  declaration  by  Mr.  Webster  of  the  position 
occupied  by  his  own  country,  was  a  notice  to  Great 
Britain  of  the  consequences,  if  the  odious  practice 
should  be  renewed.     On  the  other  hand,  while  de- 


im 


6o 


P  O  M  T I C  A  L    C  O  N  T  R  ( )  V  E  R  S 1 E  S 


dining  to  negotiate  on  the  subject  as  not  included 
within  his  powers,  and  advancing  the  English  doc- 
trine of  indefeasibe  right,  the  British  negotiator 
softened  his  declination  with  encouraging  words  ate 
to  future  action.  This  was  long  postponed,but  noth- 
ing occurred  to  arouse  angry  feelings  on  the  subject. 
Enough  had  transpired  to  make  it  evident  that  the 
practical  assertion  of  the  doctrine  upon  one  side, 
would  be  followed  by  a  declaration  of  war  on  tho 
other.  But  after  a  delay  of  nearly  thirty  years,  ia 
diplomatic  terniination  appears  to  have  been  given 
to  the  question,  by  a  treaty  concluded  at  London  on 
the  1 3th  day  of  Maiy,  1870.  '  ^       ,.  .,.     . . 

The  negotiator  on  the  part  of  the  United  States 
was  Mr.  Motley,  the  historian,  whose  profound  and 
fascinating  works  had  already  elevated  Jiim  to  th'e 
first  rank  among  literary  men,  and  who,  by  his  learn- 
ing and  world  wide  reputati6n,was>admirably  adapt- 
ed to  bring  the  negotiations  to  a  happy  close.  TlTis 
treaty  was  duly  ratified, and  permitted  the  citizens  <9f 
the  one  government  to  be  naturalized  and  become  the 
subjects  of  the  other,  and  also  provided  in  what  man- 
ner a  naturalized  citizen  by  a  change  of  residence 
could  obtain  re-^admittance  to  his  original  citizenship. 


:  f.  »., 


.' _  »^ . 


..U'^ 


>;>wi    ,  'j: 


:'■■;■;• 


h. 


'    ;.        '* 


•   •     \ 


•.\    ..• 


l.»..  !■ 


■aai 


^«) 


'm 


•<■  .it  'I 


,i 


CHAPTER   III. 


COMMERCIAL  RELATIONS  -  BOUNDARIES 
OF  THE  RIVER  ST.  LAWRENCE. 


NAVIGATION 


The  treaty  of  Ghent  was  silent  with  regard  tb 
the  commercial  relations  of  the  two  countries,  biit 
this  j^ubject  was  soon  taken  into  consideration  by- 
commissioners  representing  the  two  government.s, 
who  concluded  a  treaty  at  London  on  the  3d  day  of 
July,  1815,  and  which;  when  ratified,  was  to  contin- 
ue in  force  for  the  term  of  four  years.  By  this 
treaty,  reciprocal  liberty  of  commerce  was  permitted 
between  the  United  States  and  his  Britannic  Majes- 
ty's territories  in  Europe,  but  'was  not  extended  to 
the  West  India  islands  or  to  English  possessions  in 
North  America.  Vessels  of  the  United  States  were 
to  be  hospitably  received  at  the  principal  British 
settlements  in  the  East  Indies  and  allowed  to  carry 
on  trade  with  the  United  States  in  all  articles  of 
which  the  importation  or  exportation  was  not  en- 
tirely prohibited.  They  were  exdiuded  from  the 
coasting  trade  between  the  settlements;  were  not 
to  pay  higher  duties  than  the  vessels  of  the  most  fa- 
vored nations;  were  permitted  to  touch  at  the  cape 
of  Good  Hope,  and  the  island  of  St.  Helena  for  re- 
freshment, not  commerce,  and  their  cargoes  were  to 
be  unloaded  in  the  Unitied  States;  The  provisions 
of  this  treaty  were  continued  in  operation  for  ten 
years  by  the  treaty  of  October  20th,  18 18.  The  re- 
strictions which  were  placed  upon  American  com- 
merce with  the  British  colonies,  however,  caused 
great  dissatisfaction;  in  the  United  States,  and  early 


rtj 


I  r-ii 


'•: 


i[ 


<•  POLITICAL    CONTKOVKKSIES 

and  persistent  efforts  were  made  for  their  removal. 
Great  Britain,  with  great  tenacity  adhered  to  the 
old  idea,  so  long  enforced  by  the  colonizing  nations 
of  Europe,  of  retaining  the  monopoly  of  its  colonial 
commerce  for, its  own  exclusive  benefit.  Of  the  ef- 
fects of  this  policy,  Mr.  Madison,  in  1816,  said:  "The 
British  government,  enforcing  new  regulations,  which 
prohibit  a  trade  between  its  colonies  and  the  United 
States  in  American  vessels,  while  they  permit  a 
trade  in  British  vessels,  the  American  navigation 
suffers  accordingly,  and  the  loss  is  augmented  by 
the  advantage  which  is  given  to  the  British  compe- 
tition over  the  American  in  the  navigation  between 
our  ports  and  British  ports  in  Europe,  by  the  circui- 
tous voyages  enjoyed  by  one  and  not  by  the  other." 
The  application  of  the  principle  of  reciprocity  to 
the  British  colonial  trade,  meeting  with  no  favor  on 
the  part  of  the  British  government,  the  United 
States  resorted  to  countervailing  action,  and  prohi- 
bited commence  in  British  vessels,  between  the  is- 
lands and  the  United  States.  This  was  soon  fol- 
lowed by  an  act  of  Parliament,  which  opened  certain 
colonial  ports  to  the  vessels  of  the  United  States 
coming  directly  from  them,  and  to  certain  articles 
of  production  burdened,  however,  with  heavy  duties. 
This  concession  was  met  as  nearly  as  practicable  by 
corresponding  action  on  the  part  of  the  Ameri(  »n 
government  and,  by  mutual  agreement,  negotic 
were  opened  with  a  view  of  effecting  satisfactoi  ir- 
rangements.  In  July,  1825,  while  this  negotiation 
was  pending,  an  act  of  Parliament  was  passed,  open- 
ing the  colonial  ports  upon  new  conditions,  with  a 
threat  to  close  them  against  any  nation  that  did  not 
accept  them. 


UNITED    STATES      GREAT    BRITAIN.       63 


The  United  States,  not  inclined  to  act '  under 
threats,  and  not  seeking  any  arrangements  which 
were  not  based  upon  mutual  equivalents,  concluded 
to  await  the  result  of  negotiations.  This  delay  was 
met  by  an  order  of  the  British  council,  excluding 
the  vessels  of  the  United  States,  after  the  first  of 
December,  1826,  from  all  the  British  colonial  ports, 
excepting  those  bordering  upon  the  territories  of 
the  United  States.  The  newly  appointed  American 
envoy,  upon  his  arrival  in  P2ngiand,  found  himself 
confronted  by  this  unexpected  order.  In  reply  to 
his  expostulations,  he  was  told  that  the  trade  of  col- 
onies is  the  exclusive  possession  of  theMother  country, 
according  to  the  ancient  doctrine  of  European  na- 
tions that  had  colonies;  that  participation  in  it  by 
other  nations  was  to  be  regulated  by  the  legislative 
acts  of  the  owning  power  and  not  by  negotiation; 
being  granted  or  withheld  simply  on  the  ground  of 
being  a  boon  or  favor,  and  as  the  United  States  did 
not  promptly  accept  the  terms  offered  by  the  act  of 
parliament  of  July,  1825,  Great  Britain  would  not 
admit  the  vessels  of  the  United  States  even  upon  an 
equality  with  the  vessels  of  other  nations. 

The  communication  of  Mr.  Canning,  the  British 
minister,  on  the  13th  of  November,  1826,  dispelled 
all  hope  of  an  immediate  adjustment  by  negotiation. 
After  discussing  at  some  length  a  previous  note  of 
the  American  envoy,  he  says:  "Hence  the  impracti- 
cability (already  so  repeatedly  proved)of  any  treaty 
upon  this  subject  between  Great  Britain  and  the 
Un'^ed  States.  Hence  the  necessity  for  Great  Bri- 
tain of  doing  whatever  she  means  to  do,  in  the  way 
of  relaxation  of  her  colonial  monopoly  by  acts  of  her 


■ill 


64 


P  O  I-  IT  I C  A  L    C  O  N  T  R  O  V  E  R  S  I  E  S 


owVi  legislature!"  He  declared  that  the  United 
States,  having  seen  proper  not  to  accept  the  condi- 
tions of  the  act  of  parliament  of  1825,  ought  not  to 
complain  that  they  are  excluded  from  a  trade  by 
Great  Britain,  which  was  offered  on  terms  equal  to 
all  who  were  willing  to  purchase  It. 

The  American  envoy  subsequently  replied  that 
his  government  regretted  the  resolution  of  his  maj- 
esty's goverrimen-t  and  availed  himself  of  the  op- 
portunity to  make  some  explanatory  remarks  upon 
his  former  note.  He  conceded  the  undoubted  right 
of  Great  Britain  to  allow  or  prohibit  foreign  com- 
merce with  any  part  of  her  dominions,  and  within 
her  jurisdiction  to  prescribe  the  conditions'  upon 
Avhich  it  should  be  enjoyed,  and  claimed  the  same 
right  for  the  United  States.  He  insisted  that  where 
there  was  Commerce,  there  must  be  two  parties; 
that  without  mutual  consent  it  could  not  exist;  that 
its  existence  is  a  fit  subject  for  negotiation,  and  that' 
there  was  no  feason  why  it  should  not  be  founded 
on  terms  of  just  reciprocity,  though  relating  to  colo- 
nies from  which  foreign  intercourse  had  been  and 
might  again  be  excluded;  that  the  negotiations  in 
1824  were  avowedly  founded  Li  a  fair  reciprocity; 
that  the  mutual  proposals  brought  the  parties  near 
together,  but  unable  to  agree  upon  some  points,  the 
negotiation  was  suspended  with  a  distinct  under- 
standing that  it  should  be  renewed  at  some  conve- 
nient day.  He  declared  that  the  British  minister  at 
Washington  had,  in  an  official  note,  on  the  26th  of 
March,  1826,  informed  the  American  secretary  of 
state  that  he  had  received  instructions  from  his  maj- 
esty's government  to  acquaint  him  that   it  is  pre- 


UNITED    STATES  -GREAT    BRITAIN. 


65 


paring  to  proceed  in  the  important  negotiations  be- 
tween that  country  and  the  United  States,  then 
placed  in  the  hands  of  the  American  minister;  that 
Mr.  Huskisson  and  Mr.  Addington  would  conduct 
the  negotiations  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain,  and, 
in  consequence  of  the  ill  health  of  the  American 
minister,  to  suggest  the  propriety  of  joining  another 
negotiator  with  him,  and  that  no  intimation  what- 
ever was  given  of  an  intention  to  exclude  colonial 
intercourse  from  the  negotiation.  As  to  the  act  of 
parliament,"one  of  its  conditions,"  he  said,"'  squired 
that  the  United  States  should  place  the  commerce 
and  navigation  of  Great  Britain  and  its  possessions 
abroad,  upon  the  footing  of  the  most  favored  nation. 

If  this  meant  that  Great  Britain  should  have  the 
same  privileges  as  any  other  nation  upon  giving  the 
same  equivalent,  this  was  already  secured  to  her  by 
the  navigation  law  of  the  United  States,  but  if  it 
was  intended  that  she  should  have  these  privileges 
in  consideration  of  being  allowed  to  trade  with  her 
colonies  and  without  any  other  equivalent,  this 
would  be  an  utter  disregard  of  all  fair  reciprocity, 
and  could  not  be  assented  to." 

In  April,  1825,  Mr.  Gallatin,  the  American  min- 
ister, was  instructed  to  apprise  the  British  govern- 
ment, that  while  his  own  government  preferred  an 
arrangement  by  convention,  it  was  not  so  wedded 
to  that  mode  as  to  prevent  its  surrender  in  a  spirit 
of  cofppiomise  and  conciliation  to  the  preference  of 
Great  Britain  for  a  regulation  of  colonial  trade  by 
reciprocal  legislation,  and  to  ascertain  if  the  privi- 
leges of  trade  accorded  by  the  act  of  1825,  would  be 
extended  to  American  vessels,  if  at  the  next  session 


U 


66 


POLITICAL    CONTROVERSIES 


of  congress,  the  president  should  recommend,  and 
Congress  should  declare  by  law,  that  alien  duties  on 
vessel  and  cargo  should  be  suspended  as  to  Great 
Britain;  that  British  vessels  should  be  permitted  to 
enter  American  ports  laden  with  the  same  kinds  of 
products  of  the  British  dominions  as  American  ves- 
sels could  lawfully  import,  without  being  liable  to 
pay  any  higher  charges  than  the  American  vessels 
under  the  same  circumstances,  and  should  also 
abrogate  the  restriction  of  the  act  of  Congress  of  the 
first  of  March,  1823,  which  confined  trade  to  direct 
intercourse  between  the  colonies  and  the  United 
States,  thus  leaving  Great  Britain  in  the  exclusive 
possession  of  the  circuitous  trade  between  the  United 
Kingdom  and  the  United  States  by  the  way  of 
the  British  colonies. 

These  propositions  were  submitted  to  the  Brit- 
ish secretary  of  foreign  afifairs  in  August,  and  re- 
ceived a  decisive  answer  on  the  first  of  October, 
1827,  when  he  declared  that  his  government  could 
not  prospectively  commit  itself  to  the  adoption  of 
any  specific  line  of  conduct  in  the  event  of  the 
enactment  of  such  a  law  as  proposed,  and  that  this 
resolution  was  the  result  of  considerations  general 
in  their  nature,  and  conclusive  against  a  prospective 
pledge  of  any  description  respecting  the  colonial 
policy  of  Great  Britain  whether  of  relaxation  or  re- 
striction. 

In  adverting  to  this  position,  President  Adams, 
in  his  annual  message  in  1827,  said:  *'The  British 
government  have  not  only  declined  negotiation 
upon  this  subject,  but  by  the  principle  they  have  as- 
sumed in  reference  to  it  have  precluded  even  the 


UNITED    STATES  — GREAT    BRITAIN. 


67 


mean<;  of  negotiation.  It  becomes  not  the  self  re- 
spect of  the  United  States  either  to  solicit  gratu- 
itous favors,  or  to  accept  as  the  grant  of  a  favor  that 
for  which  an  ample  equivalent  is  exacted.  It  re- 
mains to  be  determined  by  the  respective  govern- 
ments, whether  the  trade  shall  be  opened  by  acts  of 
reciprocal  legislation.  It  is  in  the  meantime,  satis- 
factory to  know,  that  "apart  from  the  inconveniences 
resulting  from  a  disturbance  of  the  usual  channels  of 
trade,  no  loss  has  been  sustained  by  the  commerce, 
the  navigation  or  the  revenue  of  the  United  States, 
and  none  of  magnitude  is  to  be  apprehended  from 
this  existing  state  of  mutual  interdict." 

In  December  of  the  next  year,  he  expressed  the 
opinion  that  the  resumption  of  the  old  system  of 
colonial  exclusion  had  failed  to  secure  to  the  ship- 
ping interests  of  Great  Britain,  the  relief  which  it 
was  expected  to  afford  at  the  expense  of  the  distant 
colonies  and  of  the  United  States,  and  that  other 
measures  had  been  resorted  to,  more  pointedly 
bearing  upon  the  navigation  of  the  United  States, 
and  which,unless  modified  by  the  construction  given 
to  recent  acts  of  parliament,  would  be  clearly  incom- 
patible with  the  positi  'e  stipulations  of  the  commer- 
cial convention  existing  between  the  two  countries. 
The  commercial  relations  of  the  two  nations,  at 
last  began  to  yield  to  the  influence  of  wiser  disposi- 
tions, and  President  Jackson,  the  successor  of  Mr. 
Adams,  informed  congress  the  next  year,  that  while 
neither  time  nor  opportunity  had  been  afforded  for 
a  full  developement  of  the  policy  which  the  cabinet 
of  Great  Britain  designed  to  pursue  toward  the 
United  States,  he  indulged  the  hope  that  it  would 


i 


I  HI 


! 


68 


POLITICAL    CONTROVERSIES 


llr 


\l$ 


■%^0 


be  of  a  just  and  pacific  character,  and  if  so,  that  a 
speedy  and  acceptable  adjustment  of  the  matters  in 
controversy  could  be  confidently  expected. 

Louis  McLane,  of  Delaware,  was  soon  after  dis- 
patched as  minister  to  London,  where  the  negotia- 
tions assumed  such  a  favorable  aspect  that  the  pres- 
ident informed  congress  by  a  special  message  on  the 
twenty-sixth  day  of  May,  1830,  that  although  no 
definite  conclusion  had  been  reached  at  the  date  of 
the  last  advices  from  Mr.  McLane,  these  were  of 
such  a  favorable  character  as  to  indicate  a  satisfac- 
tory result  and  to  justify  him  in  suggesting  the  pro- 
priety of  providing  for  a  decision  during  the  recess 
of  congre.ss. 

In  accordance  with  the  suggestions,  an  act  was 
passed,  authorizing  the  president  upon  certain  con- 
ditions, to  proclaim  the  ports  of  the  United  States 
open  to  British  vessels  and  their  cargoes,  and  the 
acts  of  1 8 18,  1820  and  1823,  to  be  suspended  or  re- 
pealed as  the  case  might  require.  The  president, 
having  received  satisfactory  evidence  that  upon  giv- 
ing effect  to  the  act  of  congress.  Great  Britain  would 
open  the  ports  designated  by  the  act,  for  an  indefi- 
nite period,  to  the  vessels  of  the  United  States  and 
their  cargoes,  issued  a  proclamation  repealing  the 
three  acts  referred  to. 

By  reciprocal  legislation,  brought  about  by  ne- 
gotiation, mutual  interdicts  were  finally  removed 
and  American  vessels  were  placed  by  Great  Britian 
upon  an  equality  with  those  of  the  most  favored  na- 
tions. They  were  permitted  to  clear  from  the  Brit- 
ish West  India  and  North  American  colonies  with 
any  articles  which  British  vessels  might  export,  and 


1^ 


UNITED    STATES    -GREAT    BRITAIN.       69 

prbceed  to  any  part  of  the  world,  except  to  Great 
Britain  and  her  dependencies. 

In  communicating  the  arrangements  to  Con- 
gress, President  Jackson  said:  "It  gives  me  un- 
feigned pleasure  to  assure  you  that  this  negotiation 
has  been  throughout,  characterized  by  the  most 
frank  and  friendly  spirit' on  the  part  of  Great  Brit- 
ain, and  concluded  in  a  manner  strongly  indicative 
of  a  sincere  desire  to  cultivate  the  best  relations 
with  the  United  States." 

The  question  which  had  disturbed  the  commer- 
cial relations  of  the  two  countries  from  the  origin 
of  the  American  government,  and  which  had  been 
the  subject  of  no  less  than  six  negotiations,  thus,  at 
last  disappeared  from  the  diplomatic  field.  The  re- 
sult, however,  in  consequence  of  discriminating  du- 
ties imposed  by  the  British  government,  has  been 
represented  by  some  as  having  proved  less  valuable 
to  American  trade  than  was  anticipated. 

«  ♦  ♦'  «  4^  «  # 

As  a  final  adjustment  of  commercial  relations  be- 
tween the  two  countries  had  been  deferred  for  more 
than  forty  years,  and  had  been  the  subject  of  repeat- 
ed aii'd  fruitless  negotiation,  so  also,  did  questions 
arise  out  of  the  treaty  of  <5hent,  in  regard  to  deport- 
ed property,  and  the  settremerit  of  boundaries,  which 
became  a  subject  for  prptracted  and  interesting  con- 
troversy and  of  remote  decisidri.    '  "" 

To  give  effect  to  the  treaty  with  regard  to  de- 
ported property,  a  treaty  was  made  at  St.  Peters- 
burg in  1822,  under  the  mediation  of  the  emperor 
of  Russia,  which  stipulated  that  two  commissioners 
and  two  arbitrators  should  be  selected;    that  the 


.   .     :| 


I' 


t' 


if 


?* 


POLITICAL    CONRTOVERSIES 


i  fl 

m 


m 


commissioners  should  adjudicate  upon  the  validity 
and  the  amount  due  upon  the  different  claims,  and 
in  the  event  of  disagreemeitt  in  any  particular  case 
under  examination  or  upon  any  question  which 
should  result  from  the  stipulations  of  the  conven- 
tion, one  of  the  arbitrators  was  to  be  chosen  by  lot 
to  act  with  them  and  the  decision  of  the  majority 
was  to  govern. 

Mr.  Jackson,  as  commissioner  on  the  part  of 
Great  Britain,  and  Mr.  Cheves  on  the  part  of  the 
United  States,  met  at  Washington,  but  soon  found 
themselves  at  variance  on  the  subject  of  interest 
with  regard  to  the  deportation  of  slaves  from  Dau- 
phine  island  in  Mobile  bay,and  in  reference  to  the  pro- 
duction of  certain  evidence.  The  British  commis- 
sioner refused  to  invite  one  of  the  arbitrators  to  aid 
in  their  decision  pretending  that  the  question  oi  in- 
terest in  his  judgment  was  clearly  excluded  from 
the  convention,  that  as  to  slaves,  on  the  ground  that 
the  island,  which  had  been  fortified  by  the  United 
States  and  captured  by  the  British  army  in  the  time 
of  the  war,  was  no  part  of  the  territory  of  the  United 
States,  but  belonged  to  west  Florida,  and  that  as 
to  the  evidence,  because  his  government  was  not 
bound  to  produce  it  except  upon  certain  conditions. 

The  conduct  of  the  British  commissioner  in  de- 
ciding what  questions  were  or  were  not  within  the 
purview  of  the  treaty,  greatly  exasperated  Mr.  Clay, 
the  American  Secretary  of  state,  and  convinced  him 
that  no  practical  good  could  result  from  the  action 
of  a  boai-d,  in  which  the  British  commissioner  mani- 
fested such  an  arbitrary  and  domineering  spirit.  He, 
therefore,  concluded  to  make  an  attempt  to  super- 


UNITED    STATES  — GREAT    BRITAIN.       71 


sede  it  as  soon  as  possible  and  to  accomplish  its  ob- 
ject by  direct  negotiations  with  the  British  govern- 
ment Negotiations  were  accordingly  opened 
through  Mr.  Gallatin,  the  American  minister  at  the 
court  of  St.  James.  In  the  course  of  his  correspon- 
dence, he  reminded  the  British  secretary  of  foreign 
affairs  that  after  a  refusal  to  indemnify,  and  after  a 
delay  of  eight  years  and  a  reference  to  a  third  pow- 
er, whose  decision  was  supposed  to  be  final,  new  im- 
pediments were  now  wholly  unexpected;  and  that 
under  such  circumstances,  in  the  case  of  private 
claims,  such  delays,  almost  equivalent  to  a  denial  of 
justice,  would  naturally  create  a  strong  sensation, 
heightened  by  the  recollection  of  a  provision  in  the 
treaty  of  1783,  similar  to  that  of  18 14,  which  had 
been  equally  disregarded  and  out  of  which  had 
grown  a  cause  or  pretence  for  the  non-payment  of 
British  debts,  followed  by  ten  years  of  mutual  re- 
criminations, and  although  most  of  the  debts  had 
been  paid,  no  indemnity  had  ever  been  made  for 
slaves  carried  away  in  contravention  of  the  treaty 
of  1783;  and  that  the  government  of  the  United 
States  could  not  acquiesce  in  the  assumed  interpre- 
tation of  the  convention  by  the  British  commission- 
er, which  would  make  him  the  exclusive  judge  of 
every  question.  A  convention  was  finally  conclu- 
ded on  the  13th  of  November,  1826,  by  which  the 
British  government  agreed  to  pay  the  United  States 
twelve  hundred  and  four  thousand  nine  hundred  and 
sixty  dollars  current  money  of  the  United  States,  in 
full  liquidation  of  claims  arising  under  the  conven- 
tion of  1822. 

The  indemnity  for  slaves  under  the  treaty  of 


m 


i 


m 


!?  I 


1  :ii 


I-  Mil 


72 


POLITICAL    CONTROVERSIES 


1783,  was  abandoned  by  the  treaty  of  1794,  in  con- 
sideration of  certain  commercial  advantages,  while 
the  latter  treaty  provided  for  the  payment  of  the 
British  debts,  which  were  finally  liquidated  by  the 
payment  to  the  British  government  of  six  hundred 
thousand  pounds.  


Boundary. — The  question  of  boundary  between 
the  United  States  and  the  British  dominions,  extend- 
ing from  the  Atlantic  to  the  Pacific  coast,  tried  the 
patience  and  exercised  the  diplomacy  of  the  two 
countries  for  a  period  of  nearly  one  hundred  years. 

The  treaty  of  1783,  had  stipulated  as  a  boundary, 
the  St.  Croix  river,  thence  from  its  source  directly 
north  to  the  northwestern-most  angle  of  Nova  Sco- 
tia, which  angle  was  described  as  "formed  by  a  line 
drawn  due  north  from  the  source  of  the  St.  Croix 
river  to  the  highlands;  along  the  said  highlands, 
which  divide  those  rivers  that  empty  themselves  in- 
to the  river  St.  Lawrence,  from  those  which  fall  into 
the  Atlantic  ocean,  to  the  northwestern-most  head 
of  the  Connecticut  river." 

An  early  controversy  arose  as  to  which  of  the 
rivers  falling  into  Passamaquoddy  bay  was  the  St. 
Croix  intended  by  the  treaty.  To  determine  this 
question,  the  treaty  of  1794.  provided  for  a  decision 
by  commissioners,  who,  after  making  the  necessary 
surveys,  on  the  25th  of  October,  1798,  declared  that 
a  river  called  the  Scoodiac,  which  falls  into  Passma- 
quoddy  bay  at  its  northwestern  quarter,  was  the  St. 
Croix  intended  by  the  treaty  of  1783,  as  far  as  its 
great  fork,  and  that  thence  its  northern  tributary  is 
a  continuation  of  the  St.  Croix  to  its  source. 


,i 


UNITED    STATES -GREAT     BRITAIN. 


73 


t. 
ts 
lis 


From  the  imperfect  knowledge  of  the  country  in 
1783,  and  an  error  as  to  true  latitude,  difficulties 
sprang  up  as  to  the  extension  of  the  boundary  line 
from  the  source  of  the  St.  Croix  north,  thence  to  the 
Connecticut  river  and  down  that  river  to  the  forty- 
fifth  degree  of  north  latitude,  thence  west  according 
to  the  specifications  of  the  treaty. 

•  '  To  settle  these  difficulties,  the  treaty  of  Ghent 
in  18 14,  had  stipulated  that  commissioners  should 
be  appointed  to  fix  the  line  in  conformity  to  the 
treaty  as  far  as  the  most  northwestern  point  of  the 
Lake  of  the  Woods,  and  in  the  event  of  disagreement 
the  matter  was  to  be  referred  to  some  friendly  pow- 
er as  umpire.  > 

•  '■•  The  commissioners  subsequently  appointed,  sat- 
isfactorily adjusted  the  boundary  between  the  river 
Iriquois  and  Lake  Superior,  but  an  irreconcilable 
difference  arose  as  to  the  portion  between  the  St- 
Croix  and  the  angle  of  Nova  Scotia.  The  negotia- 
tors in  1783,  were  governed  by  Mitchell's  map  on 
which  the  angle  and  the  highlands  were  distinctly 
represented,  but  the  British  agent  offered  before  the 
commissioners  a  map,  which  the  American  negotia- 
tors refused  to  receive,  believing  that  the  range  of 
highlands  laid  down  upon  it  had  no  existence  in  na- 
ture, and  the  map  produced  upon  the  American 
side  was  rejected  by  the  British  commissioner  as 
equally  inaccurate.  The  two  angles  contended  for 
were  one  hundred  miles  apart,  and  the  British  min- 
ister at  Washington,  in  a  communication  addressed 
to  the  American  secretary  of  state,  on  the  25th  of 
March,  1828,  indicated  the  extent  of  the  territorial 
disagreement  of  the  two  governments,  by  insisting 


10 


74 


POLITICAL    CONRTOVERSIKS 


that  the  boundary  was  clearly  defined  from  the 
mouth  of  the  St.  Croix  river  to  its  source,  but  that 
the  commissioners,  under  the  5th  article  of  the 
treaty  of  Ghent  had  differed  as  to  its  continuation, 
this  depending  upon  the  position  of  the  northwest 
angle  of  Nova  Scotia,  the  British  commissioners  lo- 
cating it  at  Mars  hill  and  the  American  commission- 
ers at  a  great  distance  north  of  this  point,  not  far 
from  the  right  bank  of  the  river  St.  Lawrence. 

The  point  claimed  by  Great  Britain,  cut  off  a 
large  extent  of  territory,  perhaps  one  third,  then 
claimed  to  be  within  the  limits  of  the  state  of  Maine. 

The  question  was  subsequently  referred  to  the 
king  of  the  Netherlands,  who,  instead  of  deciding 
the  question  submitted  to  him,  recommended  a  new 
line,  which  the  United  States  declined  to  accept, 
and  proposed  to  renew  negotiations  with  the  British 
government.  This  was  declined  unless  certain  pre- 
liminary conditions  were  accepted  by  the  United 
States,  which  was  not  done.  The  American  gov- 
ernment claimed  that  neither  party  was  to  exercise 
exclusive  territorial  jurisdiction  over  the  disputed 
territory  during  the  pendency  of  the  controversy, 
but  this  was  denied  by  the  British  authorities,  and 
a  border  conflict  of  claims  arose,  which,  for  several 
years,  agitated  the  inhabitants  of  the  state  of  Maine 
and  of  the  British  provinceof  New  Brunswick.  The 
angry  feeling  upon  both  sides,  finally  rose  so  high 
as  to  threaten  an  appeal  to  military  force.  To 
avert  this,  the  American  secretary  of  state  and  the 
British  minister  at  Washington,  signed  a  memoran- 
dum which  stipulated  that  until  a  satisfactory  ad- 
justment could  be  obtained  by  friendly  negotiation. 


UNITED    STATES      GREAT    IJ  RITA  IN. 


75 


e 
e 
h 
o 
e 


her  majesty's  officers  in  New  Brunswick  should  not 
seek  to  expel  by  military  force  the  armed  party, 
which  had  been  sent  by  the  state  of  Maine  into  the 
district  bordering  on  the  Aristook  river,  and  that 
the  latter  should  voluntarily  and  without  needless 
delay,  withdraw  beyond  the  bounds  of  the  disputed 
territory,  any  armed  force  now  within  that  district, 
and  that  future  operations,  if  necessary,  to  expel  no- 
torious trespassers  or  for  the  protection  of  public 
property,  should  be  conducted  in  such  manner  as 
should  be  agreed  upon  by  the  governments  of  Maine 
and  New  Brunswick. 

Gen.  Scott  was  dispatched  to  the  scene  of  diffi- 
culties with  a  view  of  allaying  the  local  excitement 
and  paving  the  way  to  an  amicable  adjustment. 
He  understood  the  magnituJe  of  his  undertaking, 
and  upon  the  eve  of  his  departure,  said  to  President 
VanBuren:  "It  you  want  luar,  I  need  only  look  on 
in  silence;  the  Maine  people  will  make  it  for  you 
fast  and  hot  enough;  I  know  them,  but  if  peace  be 
your  wish,  I  can  give  no  assurance  of  success.  The 
difficulties  in  its  way  will  be  formidable."  "Peace 
with  honor,"  replied  the  President,  "and  such,"  says 
Scott,  "being  my  own  wish,  I  went  forward  with  a 
hearty  good  will." 

By  the  skilful  and  judicious  management  of 
Scott,  aided  by  his  great  popularity  with  the  people 
of  Maine,  and  the  personal  friendship  which  existed 
between  him  and  the  governor  of  the  province  of 
New  Brunswick,  Sir  John  Harvey  of  the  British 
army,  which  dated  back  to  the  war  of  1812,  an  ar- 
rangement was  soon  effected  between  the  Governor 
and  the  legislature  of  the  state  of  Maine  and  the 


■  11 


76 


rOMTICAl,    CONTROVERSIES 


governor  of  New  Brunswick  with  regard  to  the  oc- 
cupancy of  the  disputed  territory,  and  the  expecta- 
tion was  expressed  on  both  sides  of  a  renewal  of 
negotiations  upon  the  subject  between  the  two  gov- 
ernments. According  to  the  mutual  understanding, 
the  troops  of  Maine  were  immediately  recalled  and 
orders  issued  for  organizing  the  civil  posse  to  pro- 
tect the  timber  recently  cut  and  to  prevent  future 
depredations. 

The  questions  involved,  were  thus  removed  to 
the  amicable  province  of  diplomacy,  and  were  at 
last  happily  disposed  of  in  1842,  by  the  treaty  of 
Washington,  which  was  negotiated  on  the  part  of 
Great  Britain  by  Lord  Ashburton,  and  on  that  of 
the  United  States  bv  Daniel  Webster.  It  was 
agreed  that  the  boundary  line  should  begin  at  the 
monument  at  the  source  of  the  St.  Croix  river  as 
designated  by  commissioners  under  the  treaty  of 
1794,  thence  north,  following  the  line  marked  by  the 
surveyors  of  the  two  governments  in  1817-18,  under 
the  5th  article  of  the  treaty  of  Ghent  to  its  intersec* 
tion  with  the  river  St.  John,  to  the  middle  of  the 
channel  thereof,  the  river  itself  to  be  free  to  naviga- 
tion by  both  parties.  The  treaty  also  disposed  of 
the  unsettled  boundary  from  the  eiitrance  of  Lake 
Superior  to  the  most  northwestern  point  of  the  Lake 
of  the  Woods. 


* 


The  St.  Lawrence — The  treaties  relative  to 
the  boundary  extending  from  the  northeastern-most 
angle  of  the  state  of  Maine  to  the  Rocky  Mountains, 
were  not  considered  by  the  British  government  as 
divesting  it  of  the  exclusive  control  of  the  naviga- 


UNITKD    STATES      GREAT    TIRTTAIN. 


77 


tion  of  that  portion  of  the  river  St.  Lawrence,  that 
had  both  banks  within  the  British  dominions.  The 
treaty  of  1794,  had  provided  for  commerce  be- 
tween the  United  States  and  Canada  upon  certain 
and  reciprocal  terms,  which  were  declared  to  be  per- 
manent stipulations,  but  Great  Britain  subsequently 
assumed  the  ground  that  the  whole  treaty  was  abro- 
gated by  the  war  of  1812. 

An  act  of  parliament  of  the  5th  of  August,  [822, 
however,  permitted  certain  enumerated  articles  to 
be  imported  into  the  Canadian  ports  upon  the  pay- 
ment of  certain  duties,  but  imposed  no  duties  upon 
the  merchandise  of  the  United  States  descending 
the  St.  Lawrence  with  a  view  to  exportation  on  the 
ocean,  but  an  act  of  the  previous  year,  imposed  du- 
ties upon  the  timber  and  lumber  of  the  United 
States  intended  for  such  exportation.  The  colonial 
governments  were  also  entrusted  with  certain  dis- 
cretionary powers,  which  m'ght  be  used  to  the  in- 
jury of  American  commerce.  To  place  this  beyond 
the  reach  of  future  annoyance  or  destruction,  the 
American  government  became  anxious  to  protect  it 
by  treaty  stipulations.  With  this  view,  Mr.  Adams, 
Secretary  of  state  in  1823,  directed  the  American 
minister  at  London,  to  approach  the  British  govern- 
ment upon  the  subject.  He  said:  *'With  regard  to 
the  right  of  that  portion  of  our  people  to  navigate 
the  river  St.  Lawrence  to  and  from  the  ocean,  it  has 
never  yet  been  discussed  between  us  and  the  Brit- 
ish government,"  that  he  had  little  doubt  that  the 
right  could  be  established  upon  the  sound  and  gen- 
eral principles  of  the  law  of  nature,  and  that  the 
power  exercised  by  a  nation  holding  both  banks  of 


U:ii 


78 


P  ()  L  I  1'  I C  A  L    CON  T  K  O  V  K  R  S  I  K  S 


a  river  at  its  mouth,  of  interdicting  or  obstructing 
its  navigation  by  people  occupying  its  banks  above, 
was  a  jurisdiction  that  originated  in  the  social  com- 
pact, and  as  a  right  of  sovereignty,  which,  however, 
is  subordinate  to  the  right  of  navigation  based  upon 
the  right  of  nature,  which  the  sovereign  right  of  one 
nation  cannot  annihilate  as  to  another. 

When,  in  the  course  of  negotiation,  the  Ameri- 
can minister  broached  these  ideas,  and  enlarged  up- 
on the  great  interests,  present  and  prospective, which 
his  country  had  in  their  adoption,  the  British  plen- 
ipotentiaries replied  that  the  claim  of  right  was  novel 
and  extraordinary;  that  they  were  willing  to  treat 
of  the  navigation  upon  the  basis  of  eqttivalents ;  as 
a  right  ih^Y  hoped  it  never  would  be  advanced,  cer- 
tainly not  persisted  in  ;  that  they  could  not  repress 
the  strong  feelings  of  surprise  at  its  bare  intimation; 
that  Great  Britain  possessed  absolute  sovereignty 
over  the  river  within  her  territorial  limits  ;  that  her 
right  to  exclude  foreign  nations  from  its  navigation, 
was  scarcely  to  be  discussed,  and  to  the  contrary 
claim  she  opposed  an  immediate,  positive  and  un- 
qualified resistance. 

On  the  other  side,  it  was  urged  that  the  claim 
was  neither  novel  or  extraordinary;  that  it  had  been 
well  considered  by  the  American  government,  and 
was  believed  to  be  maintained  by  the  soundest  prin- 
ciples of  public  law;  that  it  had  been  familiar  in  the 
past  discussions  of  the  United  States,  and  had  been 
successfully  asserted  with  regard  to  the  river  Mississ- 
ippi, when  its  lower  banks  were  in  possession  of  a 
foreign  power  ;  that  the  right  was  essential  to  the 
condition  and  wants  of  society,  and  as  such  had  been 


UNI'iED    STATES      GREAT    BRITAIN. 


79 


recognized  by  the  Congress  of  Vienna,  where  the 
parties  to  the  European  alliance  had  declared  by- 
treaties,  that  certain  German  rivers  should  not  be 
closed  by  those  occupying  the  lower  banks,  against 
those  above,  but  should  be  free  to  all  nations. 

The  question  was  subsequently  discussed  at  great 
length,  without  either  party  yielding  its  position  ; 
and  on  the  2[st  of  September,  1827,  the  American 
minister  wrote  to  his  government,  that  the  British 
plenipotentiaries  would  entertain  no  proposition 
founded  on  the  right  claimed  by  the  United  States, 
but  whilst  the  present  state  of  things  continued, that 
the  British  government  would  throw  no  impediment 
in  the  way  of  intercourse  with  the  North  American 
British  possessions,  if  the  United  States  would  per- 
mit it  to  continue. 

The  American  minister  was  directed  not  to  relin- 
quish the  right  claimed  by  the  United  States,  and 
the  importance  of  the  outlet  to  the  sea  was  ar- 
gued with  great  force  by  the  American  Secretary, 
Mr.  Clay.  He  said  that  the  North  American  lakes 
are  among  the  largest  seas  upon  the  globe,  that  they 
extend  from  about  the  forty-first  ♦^o  the  forty-ninth 
degree  of  north  latitude,  and  oi  .;r  sixteen  degrees 
of  longitude,  having  a  surface  of  over  eighty-three 
thousand  square  miles  ;  that  the  states  and  territory 
that  bordered  upon  them  had  a  population  exceed- 
ing two  millions,  and  rapidly  increasing  ;  that  the 
navigation  of  the  lakes,  and  of  the  St.  Lawrence,  as 
far  as  it  was  a  common  boundary  between  the  Brit- 
ish territory  and  the  United  States,  was  secured  by 
treaty  to  both  nations  ;  and  that  the  United  States 
claimed  for  its  commerce  the  right  to  pass  through 


5  I  s, 


Hii 


i 


8o 


POLITICAL    CONTROVERSIES 


the  natural  outlet  from  the  lakes  to  the  ocean  ;  the 
great  highway  of  nations. 

The  question  remained  unsettled  for  nearly  half 
a  century  longer,  when  it  was  finally  disposed  of  by 
the  treaty  of  Washington,  in  1 871,  at  which  time  the 
population  of  the  eight  states  bordering  upon  the 
great  lakes,  exceeded  seventeen  millions.  By  the 
twenty-sixth  article  of  that  treaty,  it  was  declared 
that  "  the  navigation  of  the  river  St.  Lawrence,  as- 
cending and  descending  from  the  forty-fifth  parallel 
of  north  latitude, where  it  ceases  to  form  the  bound- 
aries between  the  two  countries,  from,  to,  and  into 
the  sea,  shall  forever  remain  free  and  open  for  the 
purposes  of  commerce  to  the  citizens  of  the  United 
States,  subject  to  any  laws  and  regulations  of  Great 
Britain  or  of  the  Dominion  of  Canada,  not  inconsist- 
ent with  such  privilege  of  free  navigation,"  and  "that 
the  navigation  of  the  rivers  Yucan,  Porcupine  and 
Stikine,  (in  Alaska,)  ascending  and  descending  from, 
to,  and  into  the  sea,  shall  forever  remain  free  and 
open  for  the  purposes  of  commerce  to  the  citizens  of 
both  powers,  subject  to  any  laws  and  regulations  of 
either  country  within  its  own  territory,  not  incon- 
sistent with  such  privileges  of  free  navigation."  Hv 
the  same  treaty,  the  free  navigation  of  Lake  Michi- 
gan was  conceded  for  the  purposes  of  commerce  to 
British  subjects  under  such  laws  and  regulations  of 
the  United  States,  or  of  the  state.i  bordering  there- 
on, as  were  not  inconsistent  with  such  privilege  of 
free  navigation,  which  was  to  exist  for  the  term  of 
ten  years  with  the  right  of  subsequent  termination 
by  two  years'  notice  to  Great  Britain.  Provision 
was  also  made  by  the  treaty  for  the  use,  upon  terms 


UNITED    STATES    -GREAT     BRITAIN. 


8i 


of  equality,  by  the  citizens  of  the  Dominion  and  of 
the  United  States,  of  the  Welland,  St.  Lawrence 
and  other  canals  in  the  Dominion,  and  of  the  St, 
Clair  Flats  and  other  canals  in  the  United  States. 

Stipulations  were  also  made  for  the  transit  in 
bond  and  without  the  payment  of  duties,  of  goods 
which  passed  through  the  territory  of  the  one  party 
to  reach  their  destination  in  the  dominions  of  the 
other.  These  stipulations  were  to  remain  in  force 
for  the  period  prescribed  in  the  33d  article  of  the 
treaty  and  as  above  applied  to  the  free  navigation  of 
Lake  Michigan.  By  the  31st  article  of  the  treaty. 
Great  Britain  engaged  to  urge  the  parliament 
of  the  Dominion  of  Canada  and  the  legislature  of 
New  Brunswick  to  levy  no  export  or  other  duty  on 
lumber  or  timber  of  any  kind  cut  on  that  portion  of 
the  American  territory  in  the  state  of  Maine, which  is 
watered  by  the  river  St.  John  and  its  tributaries,  and 
floated  down  that  river  to  the  sea,  when  the  same 
is  shipped  to  the  United  States  from  the  province 
of  New  Brunswick;  and  in  the  event  of  such  duties 
being  continued  after  the  expiration  of  a  year  from 
the  ratification  of  the  treatv,  the  United  States  were 
authorized  to  suspend  the  right  of  carrying,  which 
was  conceded  by  ihe  30th  article  thereof,  in  regard 
to  the  transit  in  bond  when  transported  in  part 
through  the  territory  of  the  other  party. 

The  reciprocity  treaty  of  1854,  which  was  subse- 
quently abrogated  by  the  United  States  by  giving 
the  requisite  notice,  contained  provisions  with  re- 
gard to  the  navigation  of  the  St.  Lawrence  and  St. 
John  rivers  and  Lake  Michigan,  by  the  citizens  of  the 
respective  governments,  which  by  the  treaty  of  1871. 
II 


H^i'S 


t  •;. 


i  i:  i  '^ 


82 


V  O'Ll  T  I  C/A  l:   (JON  R  T  O  V^  R  SI  E  »  :.    ' 


were  placed   in   an  enlarged  and  more  satisfactory 
condition. 

When,  in  1827,  Mr.  Clay  vvias  zealously  maintain- 
ing the  right  of  his  country  to  the  free  navigation 
of  the  St.  Lawrence,  and  when  about  the  same  time, 
De  Witt  Clinton,  with  profound  sagacity  was  en- 
gaged, amid  the  derision  and  sneers  of  political  op- 
ponents, in  the  work  of  connecting  the  waters  of  the 
Hudson  river  -with  the  Great  Lakes  by  the  Ph'ie 
canal,  it  is  not  probable  that  either  of  those  illus- 
trious men  anticipated  the  subsequent  marvelous 
growth  and  development  of  the  states  which  now 
border  upon  those  lakes.  i      .         ; 


[  t 


nmuaaa.. 


CHAPTER     IV. 


OREGON       INTER-OCEANIC   COMMUNICATION    -FISHER 

The  territory  which  extends  many  degrees  of 
latitude  upon  the  Pacific  coast  and  includes  that 
which  is  watered  by  the  Columbia  river  and  its  trib- 
utaries, became  the  subject  of  controversy  within 
the  first  two  decades  of  the  present  century.  At 
the  commencement,  the  two  governments  asserted 
and  maintained  adverse  opinions  with  such  fixed 
purpose,  that  it  was  soon  apparent  that  there  was 
no  prospect  of  an  immediate  agreement.  Neither 
party,  however,  was  disposed  to  come  to  an  open 
rupture,  but  while  this  disagreement  existed,  the 
citizens  of  both  countries  were  seeking  admittance 
into  this  inviting  region,  and  it  became  a  pressing 
duty  to  throw  around  them  the  protection  of  law. 
In  the  absence  of  this,  each  government  was  liable 
to  be  harrassed  by  the  complaints  of  its  subjects  and 
involved  in  disputes  with  the  other.  .To  make  ample 
provisions  upon  these  points,  it  was  stipulated  by 
the  convention  of  October  20th,  1818,  that  the 
boundary  between  the  two  parties  should  extend 
from  the  Lake  of  the  Wootls  along  the  49th  parallel 
of  north  latitude  to  the  Rocky  Mountains,  and  that 
any  country  claimed  by  either  party  on  the  north- 
west coast  west  of  those  mountains,  with  its  harbors, 
bays  and  rivers  should  be  free  and  open  for  the  term 
of  ten  years  to  the  vessels,  citiz  :ns  and  subjects  of 
the  two  powers,  without  prejudice  to  the  claims  of 
either  party  to  any  part  of  it,  or  of  any  other  power 


H 


POLITICAL    CON  T  R  O  V  E  R  S 1  E  S 


or  state,  and  that  the  object  of  the  contracting  par- 
ties was  to  prevent  disputes  among  themselves. 

In  1823,  written  negotiations  were  renewed  for  a 
settlement  of  the  boundary  between  the  two  powers 
upon  this  coast.  Mr.  Rush,  the  American  minis- 
ter at  the  court  of  .St.  James,  was  instructed  by- 
Mr.  J.  Q.  Adams,  the  American  secretary  of  state 
under  President  Monroe,  to  make  advances  in  this 
direction  and  to  suggest  the  parallel  of  the  51st  de- 
gree of  north  latitude  as  the  southern  boundary  of  the 
British  possessions,with  permission,  if  insisted  on  by 
that  government,  to  agree  to  an  extension  of  the 
eastern  boundary  to  the  Pacific  Ocean  on  the  49th 
parallel  of  north  latitude.  The  British  commission- 
ers replied  by  controverting  the  facts  and  principles 
urged  by  the  American  minister,  and  insisted  that 
the  unoccupied  territory  between  the  42d  and  51st 
degrees  of  north  latitude  were  still  open  to  British 
settlement  as  heretofore,  that  Great  Britain  would 
not  relinquish  the  principle  of  colonization  on  that 
coast,  and  that  she  also  relied  upon  a  paramount 
title  by  discovery  and  occupancy. 

The  British  commissioners  proposed,  however, 
to  fix  upon  the  Columbia  river  as  the  dividing  line 
between  the  two  governments,  which  was  declined 
by  the  American  government.  Negotiations  were 
resumed  on  the  i6th  of  November,  1826,  when  the 
American  minister  proposed  to  fix  the  boundary 
upon  the  forty-ninth  degree  of  north  latitude,  with  the 
condition  that  if  it  should  cross  the  great  northwest- 
ern-most branch  of  the  Columbia  river,  or  any  other 
of  its  branches,  which  is  navigable  to  the  main  river, 
then  the  navigation  of  such    branches   and  of  the 


UNITED    STATES-    GREAT     IJKITAIN. 


85 


main  river  itself,  should  be  perpetually  free  to  the 
subjects  of  both  governments.  This  proposition 
was  rejected  by  the  British  commissioners,  who 
modified  their  previous  one,  and  considering  that  a 
safe  and  commodious  port  on  the  northwest  coast 
was  a  matter  of  great  importance  to  the  United 
States,  and  as  none  was  found  between  the  42d  de- 
gree of  north  latitude  and  the  mouth  of  Columbia 
river,  they  proposed  to  concede  to  the  United  States 
the  possession  of  Port  Discovery  on  the  southern 
coast  of  De  Fuca's  inlet  with  certain  adjacent  terri- 
tory, and  to  stipulate  not  to  erect  any  works  at  the 
entrance  or  upon  the  banks  of  the  Columbia  river, 
which  should  in  any  way  be  calculated  to  impede 
navigation  by  the  vessels  or  boats  of  either  party. 

The  American  minister  considered  this  proposi- 
tion as  wholly  inadequate,  and  declined  even  to 
refer  it  to  his  own  government  for  consideration. 
During  these  important  negotiations  the  claims 
of  the  respective  parties  were  discussed  with  great 
earnestness  and  abilitv. 

On  the  British  side,  it  was  said  that  Great 
Britain  claimed  no  exclusive  sovereignty  over  any 
portion  of  the  territory,  but  that  her  present  claims, 
not  in  respect  to  any  part,  but  to  the  whole,  were 
limited  to  the  right  of  joint  occupancy  with  other 
states,  leaving  the  right  of  exclusive  dominion  in 
abeyance;  that  on  the  contrary,  the  United  States 
claimed  the  exclusive  sovereignty  from  the  42d  to 
49th  degree  of  north  latitude,  thus  tending  to  the 
exclusion  of  all  other  nations.  It  was  contended 
that  Great  Britain  had  the  better  right  of  priority  of 
discovery  of  the  whole  coast,  by  the  early  establish- 


$ 


^ 


P  O  li  I  T I  C  A  I.    C:  O  N  T  R  C)  V  E  R  S  1  E  S 


\ 


ment  of  posts  by  the  northwestern  trading  company 
on  the  head  waters  of  the  main  branch  of  the  Co- 
lumbija  river  and  gradually  extending  down  that 
branch,  and  by  the  convention  of  Nootka  Sound, 
made  in  1790,  between  Spain  and  Great  Britain, 
which  stipulated :  "That  the  respective  subjects  of 
the  two  parties  should  not  be  disturbed  or  molested 
either  in  navigating  or  carrying  on  their  fisheries  in 
the  Pacific  Ocean  or  in  the  South  seas,  or  in  land- 
ing on  the  coasts  of  those  seas,  in  places  not  already 
occupied,  for  the  purpose  of  carrying  on  their  com- 
merce with  the  natives  of  the  country,  or  of  making 
settlements  there,"  and  also  that  in  all  places,  wher- 
ever the  subjects  of  either  party  shall  have  made 
settlements  since  the  month  of  April,  1789,  or  shall 
make  any,  the  subjects  of  the  other  shall  have  free 
access,  and  shall  carry  on  their  trade  without  any 
disturbance  or  molestation,  the  question  of  superior 
right  being  undecided.  It  was  asserted  that  this 
treaty  had  not  been  abrogated  by  the  subsequent 
war  between  Great  Britain  and  Spain,  that  its  pro- 
visions as  to  the  rights  of  landing  and  occupancy 
were  still  operative,  and  that  no  argument  could  be 
sustained  against  the  rights  of  Great  Britain  on  the 
ground  of  the  restitution  of  the  captured  post  of 
Astoria,  at  the  mouth  of  Columbia  river,  pursuant 
to  a  deiliand  made  by  the  American  government  in 
1815,  under  the  treaty  of  Ghent,  because  the  order 
for  that  restitution,  issued  to  the  officers  in  possess- 
ion, directed  the  restitution  to  be  made  without  ad- 
mitting the  right  of  the  United  States  to  that  pos- 
session, and  because  the  British  minister  at  Wash- 
ington was  instructed  in  February,   18 18,  to  signify 


UNITED    STATES-    GREAT     HRITAIN. 


87 


1 1 


to  the  American  secretary  of  state,  that  whilst  his 
government  fully  acquiesced  in  the  re-occupation  of 
the  limited  position  held  by  the  United  States  at 
the  breaking  out  of  the  war  of  18 12,  he  would  at  the 
same  time  assert  in  suitable  terms,  the  claim  of 
Great  Britain  to  that  territory,  and  that  the  Ameri- 
can settlement  must  be  considered  as  an  encroach- 
ment.      ' 

On  the  other  side,  the  Americ^in  minister 
claimed  a  natural  extension  of  the  territory  of  the 
United  States  to  the  Pacific  Ocean,  on  the  ground 
of  contiguity  and  popuLition,  and  under  the  rights 
acquired  by  the  acquisition  of  Louisiana  in  1803. 
He  insisted  that  the  American  right  was  established 
to  the  whole  territory  which  was  drained  by  the 
Columbia  river  and  its  tributaries,  together  with  a 
certain  portion  of  territory  on  the  coast  north  and 
south  of  the  mouth  of  that  river,  which  had  been 
discovered  by  Captain  Gray,  and  the  whole  course 
of  which  river  had  been  explored  by  him  and  by 
Lewis  and  Clark,  before  any  of  its  branches  were 
explored  by  Great  Britain;  he  also  contended  that, 
by  the  treaty  made  with  Spain  in  18 19,  the  United 
States  acquired  all  of  the  rights  of  that  government 
to  the  territory  north  of  the  42d  degree  of  north  lat- 
itude, founded  either  upon  priority  of  discovery  or 
settlement,  and  which  extended  north  of  the  49th 
degree  of  north  latitude.  He  further  claimed  that 
no  British  settlement  existed  on  the  Columbia  river, 
even  so  late  as  the  exploration  of  Lewis  and  Clark, 
which  was  completed  from  the  source  of  the  river  to 
its  mouth  prior  to  the  6th  of  November,  1805,  and 
none  was  known  to  exist  south  of  the  49th  degree  of 


88 


P  ()  I.  IT  1  C  A  I.    C  O  N  r  K  O  V  K  U  S  I  K  S 


north  latitude  at  the  time  the  settlement  of  Astoria 
was  commenced,  which  was  captured  by  Great 
Britain,  but  was  restored  under  the  treaty  of  Ghent. 

The  diplomatists  exhausted  all  subsidiary  argu- 
ments, subjected  to  severe  scrutiny  opposing  posi- 
tions, and  finding  from  a  wide  variance  of  views 
the  impossibility  of  agreeing  upon  a  common  bound- 
ary, fell  back  upon  the  convention  of  1818,  which 
was  indefinitely  continued,  with  the  right  of  abro- 
gating it  reserved  to  each  party  upon  giving  twelve 
month's  notice  to  the  other. 

The  United  States  had  acquired  by  treaty  all 
the  rights  of  Spain  north  of  the  426  degree  of  north 
latitude,  and  Great  Britain  had,  by  treaty  with  Rus- 
sia in  1825,  fixed  the  southern  boundary  of  the  Rus- 
sian possessions  at  54°  4^'  ^"'-^  the  intervening 
space  thus  became  debatable  ground  for  the  two 
governments  under  the  claim  of  right. 

The  statesmen  of  both  countries  fully  realized 
the  prospective  advantages  and  growing  importance 
of  the  Pacific  coast,  and  the  attention  of  Congress 
was  repeatedly  directed  to  them.  In  June,  1838, 
senator  Linn  of  Missouri,  in  behalf  of  a  select  com- 
mittee, submitted  to  the  United  States  senate  a  re- 
port upon  the  American  title,  accompanied  bv  a  bill 
authorizing  the  president  to  employ  such  portions 
of  the  army  and  navy  as  he  deemed  necessary  for 
the  protection  of  the  persons  and  property  of  those 
residing  in  the  territory.  He  said  :  "  It  is  un- 
necessary to  go  at  large  into  the  discussion  of  title 
as  that  has  been  so  ably  argued  by  the  late  Gover- 
nor Floyd,  who  was  the  first  to  urge  on  Congress 
the  use  and  occupation  of  the  Oregon  territory,  by 


UNITED     STATES      GREAT    BRITAIN. 


89 


is 

•r 
e 
1- 

iS 

\y 


Mr.  F.  Baylies  in  two  reports  to  the  House  of  Rep- 
resentatives, and  in  the  diplomatic  correspondence 
and  the  public  documents  of  the  United  States." 
He  quoted  extensively  from  the  report  of  Mr.  Bay- 
lies, as  touching  the  interests  and  policy  of  Great 
Britain,  which  impelled  her  under  all  circumstances, 
to  persevere  in  the  attempt  to  secure  commanding 
positions  in  all  quarters  of  the  globe,  through  which 
to  check,  to  influence  and  to  control  other  nations 
and  to  build  up  her  military  and  commercial  power, 
and  that,  as  auxiliary  to  this,  the  possession  of  the 
Oregon  territory  by  Great  Britain  would  give  her 
immense  influence  over  the  fierce  and  warlike  tribes 
of  Indians  who  roamed  over  the  vast  regions  be- 
tween the  western  frontiers  and  the  Pacific  Ocean. 

The  rapidly  increasing  current  of  emigration  to 
that  coast,  where  the  people  had  a  vital  interest  in 
having  the  boundary  question  settled  with  a  view  to 
safety  and  protection,  pressed  the  subject  with  con- 
stantly augmenting  force  upon  the  American  mind. 

The  British  government  provided  at  an  early 
day  for  the  security  of  British  subjects,  and  an  act 
of  parliament  of  July  the  second,  1821,  extended  the 
civil  and  criminal  laws  of  Great  Britain  over  those 
engaged  in  the  fur  trade,  and  provided  for  the  ap- 
pointment of  justices  of  the  peace  and  other  judicial 
ofiicers  in  Oregon,  vesting  power  in  them  to  execute 
all  process  issuing  from  the  courts  of  the  province  of 
Upper  Canada,  to  sit  and  hold  courts  of  record  for 
the  trial  of  criminal  offences  not  subject  to  capital 
punishment,  and  to  have  jurisdiction  in  civil  cases 
where  the  cause  of  action  did  not  exceed  two  hun- 
dred pounds.     In  marked  contrast  with  this  alacrity 


1  :'X 


■4 


12 


IMAGE  EVALUATION 
TEST  TARGET  (MT-3) 


■r 


%. 


^'  4t^ 


4^ 


1.0 


ii 


lii|21    |Z5 

Ufc 


Fhot9graphic 

^Sdfflices 

CarporatiQn 


50^ 


33  WIST  MAIN  STRHT 

WIISTIR,N.Y.  14510 

(716)t72-4S03 


li 


o 


*<u^0 


i\ 


s\ 


<^" 


<«^ 


Irr 


90 


POLITICAL    CONTROVERSIES 


on  the  part  of  the  British  government  to  go  to  the 
very  verge  of  her  treaty  rights  for  the  protection  of 
British  subjects,  the  American  settlers  had  been  left 
unprotected  by  similar  laws,  and  had  been  compelled 
for  personal  security  and  the  enjoyment  of  personal 
rights,  to  have  recourse  to  self  constituted  tribunals 
and  regulations.  The  necessity  for  the  establish 
ment  of  legally  constituted  authority,  became  finally 
so  urgent  and  palpable  that  negotiations  were  re- 
newed with  Great  Britain  for  the  final  settlement  of 
all  controversy  with  regard  to  the  territory,  and 
after  alluding  to  th;c  negotiation  in  his  third  an- 
nual message  in  Decen  her,  [843,  President  Tyler 
expressed  the  opinion  •  ■'■  the  laws  of  the  United 
States  should  foliow  tiijs  •  citizens  who  emigrated 
to  that  territory,  with  such  modifications  as  the  cir- 
cumstances should  require.  He  returned  to  the 
subject  in  his  next  annual  message,  and  again  insist- 
ed upon  legislative  enactments  for  the  protection  of 
the  emigrants.  His  successor  in  office,  Mr.  Polk,  in 
his  inaugural  address  in  1845  was,  perhaps,  still  more 
emphatic  in  the  utterance  of  his  opinions,  declaring 
that  the  American  title  to  Oregon  *'is  clear  and  un- 
questionable," that  the  emigrants  to  it,  ought  to  be 
protected  by  the  jurisdiction  of  our  laws  and  the 
benefits  of  our  republican  institutions,  but  that  at 
the  same  time,  treaty  stipulations  ought  to  be  sa- 
credly observed.  In  December  following,  after  ad- 
verting in  his  message  to  the  failure  of  previous  ne- 
gotiations, he  said  in  reference  to  that  pending 
when  he  came  into  office,  that  "like  all  the  previous 
negotiations,  it  was  based  upon  principles  of  "com- 
promise" and  the  avowed  purpose  of  the  parties  was 


UNITED    STATES  — GREAT    BRITAIN.       91 


"to  treat  of  the  respective  claims  of  the  two  coun- 
tries to  the  Oregon  territory  with  the  view  to  estab- 
lish a  permanent  boundary  between  them  westward 
of  the  Rocky  Mountains  to  the  Pacific  Ocean." 

On  the  twenty-sixth  of  August,  1844,  the  British 
plenipotentiary  had  repeated  the  offer  made  by  his 
government  in  1826,  with  the  additional  offer  of  cer- 
tain free  ports.  This  proposition  was  rejected  by 
the  American  plenipotentiary  on  the  day  upon 
which  it  was  made,  and  upon  its  rejection,  the  Brit- 
ish plenipotentiary  requested  that  a  proposal  should 
be  made  by  the  United  States  for  an  equitable  ad- 
justment of  the  question.  The  negotiation  being 
taken  up  at  this  stage  by  President  Polk,  and  in 
reply  to  the  British  request,  it  was  proposed  to  fix 
the  boundary  upon  the  parallel  of  forty-nine  de- 
grees of  north  latitude  as  offered  by  former  adminis- 
trations without  proposing,  as  they  had  done,  to 
concede  to  British  subjects,  the  free  navigation  of 
the  Columbia  river,  to  which  the  President  was  not 
inclined,  and  also  to  make  free  to  Great  Britain  any 
port  or  ports  on  the  cape  of  Quadra  and  Vancou- 
ver's island  south  of  that  latitude.  The  British  min- 
ister rejected  this  proposition  and  expressed  the 
hope  that  the  United  States  would  offer  some  "fur- 
ther proposal  for  the  settlement  of  the  Oregon  ques- 
tion, more  consistent  With  fairness  and  equity,  and 
within   the  reasonable  expectations  of  the  British 


government. 


President  Polk  declared  in  his  message  that  the 
rejected  proposition  was  made  in  deference  to  the 
action  of  his  predecessors  and  the  implied  obliga- 
tion, which  it  seemed  to  impose;   that  if  it  had  been 


i 


rf 


92 


POLITICAL    CONRTOVERSIES 


a  new  question,  coming  under  discussion  for  the 
first  time,  such  a  proposition  would  not  have  been 
made,  and  that  its  rejection  combined  with  the  in- 
admissible demands  of  the  British  government  pre- 
cluding the  hope  that  a  compromise  could  be 
effected  such  as  the  United  States  ought  to  accept.had 
induced  him  to  direct  the  withdrawal  of  the  propo- 
sition of  compromise  and  the  assertion  on  their  part, 
of  title  to  the  whole  of  Oregon  as  justified  by  un- 
answerable facts  and  arguments.  At  the  same  time 
he  recommended  that  Great  Britain  should  receive 
the  requisite  notice  for  the  abrogation  of  the  treaty, 
and  that  the  civil  and  criminal  laws  of  the  United 
States  should  be  immediately  ey^^'indeci  over  the 
American  citizens  resident  in  the  territorv,  to  as 
full  extent  as  had  been  done  by  the  English  parlia- 
ment in  1 82 1,  over  British  subjects.  These  recom- 
mendations, made  in  December,  1845,  were  renewed 
in  a  special  message  in  March  following,  in  which 
he  also  adverted  to  the  unusual  and  warlike  prepa- 
rations being  made  by  Great  Britain,  while  apparent- 
ly enjoying  the  most  pacific  relations  with  all  Eu- 
ropean nations.  He  insisted  that  the  notice  to 
abrogate  the  treaty,  being  authorized  by  the  treaty 
itself,  could  not  be  regarded  as  a  war  measure ;  that  the 
general  policy  of  additional  warlike  measures  had 
been  distinctly  announced  from  the  British  throne 
and  sustained  by  the  minister  in  parliament,  and 
that  while  his  own  recommendations  had  been  in 
strict  accordance  with  treaty,  in  view  of  the  warlike 
preparations  of  Great  Britain  and  to  be  prepared  for 
any  contingincy,  he  urged  the  increase  of  the  means 
of  defence  both  by  sea  and  land.    He  added,  "that  to 


UNITED    STATES      GREAT     BRITAIN.        93 

fold  our  arms  in  security  and  at  last  be  suddenly 
involved  in  hostilities  for  the  maintenance  of  our 
rights,  without  any  adequate  preparation,  our  res- 
ponsibility would  be  of  the  gravest  character."  In 
accordance  with  a  joint  resolution  of  congress,  in- 
structions were  issued  to  Mr.  McLean,  the  Ameri- 
can minister  at  London,  to  give  the  required  notice 
of  the  abrogation  of  the  treaty;  but  before  commu- 
cating  his  instructions,  he  had  an  interview  with 
Lord  Aberdeen,  the  British  minister,  out  of  which 
grew  new  propositions  from  the  British  government 
which  culminated  on  the  15th  day  of  June,  1846,  in 
a  convention  at  Washington  between  Mr.  Buchan- 
an and  Mr.  Packenham,  representing  the  two  gov- 
ernments, which  extended  the  boundary  westward 
on  the  49th  parallel  to  the  middle  of  the  channel 
which  separates  the  continent  from  Vancouver's  Is- 
land, and  thence  southerly  through  the  middle  of 
said  channel  and  of  Fuca's  straits  to  the  Pacific 
Ocean;  the  said  channel  and  straits  south  of  the 
49th  parallel  to  remain,  however,  open  to  both  par- 
ties. 

Provision  was  also  made  for  the  commercial  nav- 
igation of  Columbia  river  by  the  British  subjects  on 
the  same  footing  as  American  citizens,  the  United 
States  retaining  the  privilege  of  making  any  regula- 
tions for  the  navigation  of  the  river  not  inconsistent 
with  the  treaty. 

The  treaty  was  upon  the  basis  proposed  in  the 
course  of  negotiations  by  the  British  government. 
Before  acceding  to  it,  the  president,  in  accordance 
with  a  practice  pursued  in  some  instances,  as  he 
said,  during  the  administration  of  Washington,  of 


it'  i 
l!'l 


M 


t. 


'T 


m 


POLITICAL    CONTROVERSIKS 


soliciting  the  advice  of  the  senate  in  advance  of 
making  a  treaty,  asked,  on  the  loth  of  June,  1846, 
the  advice  of  the  senate,  although  his  own  views  of 
the  extent  of  the  American  title  remained  un- 
changed. The  question  of  accepting  the  English 
proposition  was  ably  and  eloquently  discussed  in 
the  senate  and  was  finally  decided  affimatively  by  a 
large  majority.  Accepting  this  advice,  which  came 
with  such  preponderating  force,  the  treaty  v/as  con- 
cluded by  the  president  and  ratified  by  the  senate 
by  a  vote  41  to  14.  i 

The  British  government  subsequently  claimed 
that  under  the  terms  of  the  treaty,  the  boundary 
line  should  run  through  the  Rosario  Straits,  while 
the  United  States  insisted  that  it  should  run  thror^h 
the  canal  De  Haro.  Each  nation  strenuously  ad- 
hered to  its  own  construction  of  the  treatv  and  the 
officers  of  each,  upon  the  Pacific  coast,  entered  so 
warmly  into  the  controversy,  especially  as  to  the 
possession  of  the  San  Juan  islands  as  greatly  to  en- 
danger in  1859,  the  peace  of  the  two  countries. 
The  question  was  finally  referred  to  the  emperor  01 
Germany  as  arbitrator  by  the  treaty  of  1871,  and  in 
1872,  he  decided  adversely  to  the  British  preten- 
sions. The  British  government  promptly  acquiesced 
in  this  decision,  and  thus  ended  a  controversy  as  to 
the  meaning  of  the  treaty,  which  had  lasted  for 
more  than  a  quarter  of  .^  century. 

iNTER-OCEANIC  COMMUNICATION— Before  the 
railway  made  its  appearance  upon  the  American 
continent  with  its  marvelous  power  of  bringing 
communities  widely  separated  geographically  into 
commercial  and  political  proximity,  down  to   the 


UNITED    STATES  — GREAT    BRITAIN. 


95 


present  time,  distinguished  and  sagacious  men  have 
been  deeply  interested  in  the  project  of  connecting 
the  Pacific  and  Atlantic  oceans  by  a  ship  canal  by 
the  way  of  Nicaragua.  With  a  view  to  the  accom- 
plishment of  this  grand  object,  treaties  have  been 
formed,  numerous  and  successive  charters  granted 
and  explorations  and  surveys  made.  Progress,  how- 
ever, has  not  kept  pace  with  the  desires  and  zeal  of 
the  persons  who  at  different  times  have  been  warm- 
ly enli'ted  in  the  enterprise. 

In  1825,  the  new  republic  of  Central  America 
proposed  to  the  government  of  the  United  States  to 
secure  by  joint  co-operation  for  the  advantage  of 
both  nations,  inter-oceanic  communication  through 
the  domains  of  the  former.  In  1826,  a  contract  was 
made  by  the  government  of  Central  America  with 
the  agent  of  a  New  York  company,  designated  as 
the  Central  American  and  the  United  States'  Atlan- 
tic and  Pacific  Canal  Company,  for  the  construction 
of  a  ship  channel  or  navigable  canal  across  the  isth- 
mus between  north  and  south  America.  DeWitt 
Clinton  and  many  other  eminent  men  were  mem- 
bers of  the  company,  but  the  scheme  fell  through. 
Subsequently  the  Central  American  government 
made  a  contract  with  a  society  of  the  Netherlands, 
the  king  of  Holland  being  earnestly  enlisted  in  the 
enterprise  for  the  same  object,  but  this  also  proved 
unsuccessful.  In  March,  1835,  the  United  States 
senate  requested  the  president  tc  consider  the  expe- 
diency of  opening  negotiations  with  other  nations 
and  especially  with  the  governments  of  Central 
America  and  Grenada,  "for  the  purpose,"  it  was  al- 
leged, "of  effectually  protecting  by  suitable  treaty 


96 


POLITICAL    CONTROVETSIES 


Stipulations  with  them,  such  individuals  or  compan- 
ies as  may  undertake  to  open  a  communication  be- 
tween the  Atlantic  and  Pacific  Oceans  by  the  con- 
struction of  a  ship  canal  across  the  isthn^us  which 
connects  north  and  south  America,  and  of  s<?curing 
forever  by  such  stipulations,  the  free  and  equal  right 
of  navigating  such  canal  to  all  nations,  on  the  pay- 
ment of  such  reasonable  tolls  as  may  be  established 
to  compensate  the  capitalists  who  may  engage  in 
such  undertaking  and  complete  the  work." 

Under  this  resolution.  President  Jackson  appoint- 
ed an  agent  to  proceed  by  the  most  direct  route  to 
Port  San  Juan  to  examine  the  contemplated  route 
of  communication  by  canal  or  railroad  to  the  Pacific 
coast,  and  then,  with  the  aid  of  Mr.  DeWitt,  the 
American  charge  d'  affaires  at  Guatemala,  the  capi- 
tal of  the  Central  American  republic,  he  was  direct- 
ed to  procure  all  such  public  documents  and  other 
information  upon  the  subject  as  could  be  obtained. 
From  Guatemala  he  was  to  proceed  to  Panama  and 
make  observations  and  procure  information  relative 
to  the  proposed  communication  at  that  point. 
From  the  difficulty  of  procuring  conveyance  to  San 
Juan,  the  agent  proceeded  to  Panama,  and  on  his 
return,  died  before  reaching  Washington,  hut  leav- 
ing an  imperfect  report  by  which  it  appeared  that  a 
ship  canal  by  the  way  of  Panama,  was  considered 
impracticable. 

In  1838,  Mr.  Bailey,  a  half  pay  officer  in  the 
British  navy,  having  been  employed  for  the  purpose 
by  the  government  of  Central  America,  made  ex- 
ploration ol  the  route  by  the  way  of  the  river  San 
Juan  which  empties  into  the  Pacific  and  the   Lake 


UNITED    STATES  -GREAT     BRITAIN. 


97 


Nicaragua.  According  to  this  survey,  the  distance 
from  the  Pacific  coast  to  the  lake  was  15^  miles,  the 
lake  furnished  navigation  for  ninety-five  miles,  and 
thence  to  the  Atlantic,  a  distance  of  seventy-nine 
miles.,  The  river  San  Juan  was  then  navigable  for 
vessels  drawing  from  3  to  4  feet  of  water.  In  1840, 
John  L.  Stephens,  the  distinguished  explorer  of  the 
ruins  of  Central  America,  under  a  commission  from 
the  government  of  the  United  States,  explored  the 
same  route  as  well  as  circumstances  would  permit 
and,  from  the  data  furnished  by  the  survey  and 
plans  of  Mr.  Bailey  to  which  he  had  access,  he  made 
a  rough  estimate,  predicated  upon  the  usual  con- 
tract prices  in  the  United  States,  that  the  cost  of 
opening  a  communication  from  ocean  to  ocean 
would  not  exceed  $25,000,000.  ^ 

In  1873,  a  thorough  exploration  of  the  country 
was  made  by  rival  and  civil  officers  dispatched  by 
the  United  States  under  the  command  of  Edward 
P.  Lull,  and  in  the  report  submitted  to  the  secretary 
of  the  navy  as  the  result  of  this  exploration,  the  sur- 
vey of  Mr.  Bailey  is  represented  as  unreliable  in 
many  respects. 

The  information  obtained  proved,  it  was  thought, 
the  feasibility  of  a  ship  canal,  that  the  route  fixed 
upon  combined  more  favorable  conditions  for  its  ac- 
complishment than  any  other  that  had  been  exam- 
ined, but  that  according  to  detailed  estimates,  the 
cost  of  its  construction  would  approximate  to  $76,- 
000,000.  Other  estimates  have  reached  a  higher 
amount,  and  in  forming  an  opinion  of  the  magnitude 
of  the  work,  we  should  take  into  account  the  heat 
and  rain,  the  rank  vegetation  and  the  malarial  cli- 

•3 


9» 


POLITlCAI<    CONTROVERSIES 


mate  to  be  encountered  in  that  tropical  region,  as 
formidable  obstacles  to  be  overcome,  and  which 
combine  to  enfeeble  the  energies  and  impede  the 
labor  of  man. 

A  few  days  prior  to  the  treaty  of  Guadalupe 
Hidalgo,  concluded  between  Mexico  and  the  United 
States  on  the  2d  of  February,  1848,  and  by  which 
the  latter  acquired  a  large  extent  of  territory  on  the 
Pacific  coast,  a  result  at  that  period  naturally  antici' 
pated  by  sagacious  men,  a  Hritish  force  invaded 
Nicaragua  and  taking  possession  -^f  San  Juan  de 
Nicaragua  changed  its  name  to  Greytoivn,  This 
occupation  was  claimed  by  the  British  government 
as  being  within  the  Mosquito  coast,  which  it  was 
bound  to  protect,  as  was  asserted,  under  an  old  alli- 
ance. The  almost  simultaneous  acquisition  of  the 
whole  of  California  bv  the  United  States,  with  a 
large  extent  of  territory  previously  possessed  on  the 
Pacific  coast,  gave  increased  interest  and  impor- 
tance to  the  subject,  and  with  a  view  of  avoiding 
future  disputes  and  complications  that  might  arise 
in  reference  to  it,  a  treaty  was  concluded  at  Wash- 
ington on  the  19th  of  April,  1850,  by  John  M.  Clay- 
ton, secretary  of  state  under  President  Taylor,  on 
the  part  of  the  United  States,  and  by  Henry  Lytton 
Bulwer  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain.  This  treaty 
was  duly  ratified  and  its  two  first  articles  were  as 

follows: 

A  R  T  I  C  L  E    I . 

"The  governments  of  the  United  States  and 
Great  Britain  hereby  declare  that  neither  the  one 
nor  the  other  will  ever  obtain  or  maintain  for  itself 
any  exclusive  control  over  the  said  ship  canal,  agree- 


UNITED    STATES  -GREAT     BRITAIN.       99 


iiig  that  neither  will  ever  erect  or  maintain  any  for- 
tifications commanding  the  same,  or  in  the  vicinity 
thereof,  or  occupy,  or  fortify,  or  colonize,  or  assume 
or  exercise  any  dominion  over  Nicaragua,  Costa 
Rica,  the  Mosquito  coast  or  any  part  of  Central 
America,  nor  will  either  make  use  of  any  protection 
which  either  affords  or  may  afford,  or  any  alliance 
which  either  has  or  may  have  to,  or  with  any  state 
or  people  for  the  purpose  of  erecting  or  maintaining 
any  such  fortifications,  or  01  occupying,  fortifying  or 
colonizing  Nicaragua,  Costa  Rica,  the  Mosquito 
coast  or  any  part  of  Central  America,  or  of  assum- 
ing or  exercising  dominion  over  the  same,  nor  will 
the  United  States  or  Great  Britain  take  advantage 
of  any  intimacy  or  use  any  alliance,  connection  or 
influence  that  either  may  possess,  with  any  state  or 
government  through  whose  territory  the  said  canal 
may  pass,  for  the  purpose  of  acquiring  or  holding 
directly  or  indirectly,  for  the  citizens  or  subjects  of 
the  one.  any  rights  or  advantages  in  regard  to  com- 
merce or  navigation  through  the  said  canal  which 
shall  not  be  offered  on  the  same  terms  to  the  citi- 
zens or  subjects  of  the  other. 


ART  ICI.E     I  I. 
Vessels  of  the  United  States  or  Great  Britain, 
traversing  the  said  canal  shall,  in  case  of  war  be- 
tween the  contracting  parties,  be  exempted  from 
blockade,  detention  or  capture  by  either  of  the  bel- 


T 


lOO 


P  ()  M  r  I C  A  I,    C  O  N  T  R  O  V  K  K  S  I  E  S 


liferents,  and  this  provision  shall  extend  to  such  a 
distance  from  the  two  ends  of  the  said  canal  as  may 
hereafter  be  found  expedient  to  establish." 

Protection  was  guaranteed,  upon  certain  terms, 
to  the  persons  or  company  constructing  the  canal, 
and  it  was  agreed  to  extend  protection  by  treaty 
stipulations,  to  any  other  practicable  communi- 
cation, whether  by  canal  or  railway  across  the 
isthmus,  which  connects  North  and  South  America, 
and  especially  the  inter-oceanic  communications, 
which  were  proposed  to  be  established  by  the  way 
of  Tehuantepec  or  Panama.  No  ^)rovision  was  made 
for  a  termination  of  the  treaty,  but  by  the  5th  arti- 
cle, the  promised  protection  could  be  withdrawn 
from  the  company  constructing  the  canal  by  one  or 
both  parties  upon  six  months  notice  to  the  other,  in 
the  event  of  unjust  discriminations  or  unreasonable 
tolls  By  the  6th  article,  other  states  were  to  be  in- 
vited to  become  parties  10  the  stipulations  of  the 
treaty. 

Mr.  Clayton  announced  to  the  country  on  the 
7th  of  May,  1850,  that  he  had  negotiated  a  treaty 
with  Sir  Henrv  Bulwcr  under  which  Great  Britain 
could  "neither  occupy,  fortify  or  colonize  or  exer- 
cise dominion  or  control  in  any  part  of  the  Mosquito 
coast  or  Central  America.  To  attempt  to  do  either 
of  these  things  after  the  exchange  of  ratifications, 
would  inevitably  produce  a  rupture  with  the  United 
States."  Mr.  Bulwer,  in  communications  with  Mr. 
Webster,  the  successor  of  Mr.  Clayton  as  secretary 
of  state,  denied  this  construction,  contending  that 
the  convention  was  not  designed  to  effect  the  posi- 
tion of  her  majesty  in  respect  to  the  Mosquito  shore. 


UNITED    STATES  -GREAT    BRITAIN.       loi 


The  treaty  went  into  effect  in  July  1850,  and  in  the 
following  September,  in  an  interview  between  Lord 
Palmerston  and  Mr.Rives.who  was  then  on  his  way  to 
Paris  as  American  minister  to  France,  the  former 
stated  "that  from  an  early  period,  the  Mosquito  In- 
dians had  been  treated  by  the  British  government 
as  a  separate  and  independent  state;  and  had  a  king; 
that  Nicaragua  never  before  had  been  in  posses- 
sion of  that  town  and  that  England  had  dispossessed 
her  of  it;  that  the  Nicaraguans  had,  in  bad  faith, 
granted  to  American  citizens,  a  right  to  open  the 
proposed  passage  through  a  territory  of  which  slie 
was  not  in  possession,  and  that  the  English  govern- 
ment hjid  therefore  given  notice  to  those  ^.rantees 
of  its  (England's^  invention  to  regard  the  contract  :ir. 
a  void  one."  He  also  added  that  Great  Hritain  had 
no  idea  oi  holding  exclusive  possession  of  the  mouth 
of  the  Rio  San  Juan  as  the  key  to  the  contemplated 
inter-oceanic  passage,  and  if  any  plan  could  be  sug- 
gested by  which  the  United  States  and  Great 
Britain  could  unite  in  i)romot'ng  such  communica- 
tion and  "declaring  it  a  common  highway  for  the 
use  and  benefit  of  all  nations,  it  would  receive  the 
most  favorable  consideration  of  her  majesty's  gov- 
ernment." Mr.  Rives  disclaimed  any  wish  on  the 
part  of  the  United  States  to  obtain  any  exclusive 
right  or  control  over  the  passage  between  the 
oceans,  and  that  while  wishing  it  dedicated  to  the 
use  of  all  nations  upon  a  footing  of  perfect  equality, 
they  would  not  consent  to  see  "it  fall  under  the  ex- 
clusive control  of  any  other  great  commercial  pow- 
er." While  such  was  the  language  held  in  London, 
the    British  charge  d'  affaires  in  Central  America 


;1  il 


102 


p  o  I.  rr  I  C  A  L    C  O  N  K  r  O  V  K  R  S I  E  s 


was  endeavoring  to  induce  the  government,  Nicara- 
gua to  fall  into  line  with  British  policy,  and  in  a 
communication  addressed  to  it  on  the  15  th  of  Au- 
gust, 1850,  said:  "Instead  of  insisting  on  its  supposed 
rights  to  the  Mosquito  shore,  Nicaragua  would  best 
consult  her  interests  by  at  once  making  good  terms 
with  England,  for  resistance  in  this  matter  will  be 
of  no  avail.  On  the  other  hand,  the  treaty  of 
Messrs.  Clayton  and  Bulwer,  about  which  you  have 
so  much  to  say,  and  in  which  you  express  so  much 
confidence,  expressly  recognizes  the  Mosquito  king- 
dom, and  sets  aside  the  rights,  which  you  pretend 
Nicaragua  has  on  that  coast.  The  true  policy  for 
Nicaragua,  is  to  undeceive  herself  in  this  respect, 
and  to  put  no  further  confidence  in  the  protestations 
of  pretended  friends,  (viz:  An^iericans.)  It  will  be 
far  better  for  her  to  come  to  an  understanding  with- 
out delay  with  Great  Britain,  on  which  nation  de- 
pends not  only  the  welfare  and  commerce  of  the 
state,  but  also  the  probability  of  accomplishing  any-: 
thing  positive  concerning  inter-oceanic  communica- 
tion through  her  territories,  because  it  is  only  in 
London  that  necessary  capital  for  such  an  enter- 
prise can  be  found. "('^  . 

.  Although  the  terms  of  the  treaty,  in  the  opinion 
of  Americans,  were  sufficiently  specific  and  compre- 
hensive to  require  the  abandonment  of  Greytown, 
the  British  government  attached  a  different  mean- 
ing to  them  and  justified  its  retention,  insisting  that 
the  treaty  was  prospective  in  character,  and  could 
not  affect  the  British  rights  to  the  territorv  then  oc- 
cupied  under  the  claim  of  an  old  or  remote  title  or 

(1)    Stout's  Nicaragua  (1859)  p.  249— 50. 


UNITKD    STATES      GKEAT     Bill  l' A  IN.      103 


the  possession  of  which  was  necessary  to  enable  her 
to  fulfill  certain  protective  duties  previously  as- 
sumed by  her  in  behalf  of  the  inhabitants  of  the 
Mosquito  coast.  In  his  annual  message  in  1855, 
President  Pierce  called  the  attention  of  congress  to 
the  views  and  action  of  the  British  government, 
which  had  already  excited  throughout  the  United 
States  the  greatest  indignation.  In  the  discussion 
which  the  message  evoked  in  the  senate,  Mr.  Clay- 
ton, the  American  negotiator,  but  who  was  then 
senator,  stated  that  the  construction  placed  upon 
the  treaty  by  Great  Britain,  was  never  dreamed  of 
by  him.  Senator  Collamer.  also  a  member  of  the 
president's  cabinet  when  the  treaty  was  made, 
strongly  repelled  the  British  view.  He  stated  that 
on  the  13th  of  November,  wliile  the  negotiation  was 
pending,  and  when  Great  Britain  had  been  in  the 
actual  possession  of  the  country  from  Greytown 
north  to  the  Balize,  entirely  cutting  off  Nicaragua 
and  Honduras  from  the  Carribbean  Sea,  Lord  Pal- 
merston  in  replying  to  an  inquiry  of  Mr.  Lawrence 
the  American  minister  in  London,  said:  "With  re- 
gard to  the  first  part  of  your  inquiry,  I  beg  to  say 
that  her  majesty'^:  government  does  not  intend  to  oc- 
cupy or  colonize  Nicaragua,  Costa  Rica,  the  Mos- 
quito coast  or  any  part  of  South  America.  With 
regard  to  Mosquito,  however,  a  close  political  con- 
nection has  existed  between  the  crown  of  Great 
Britain  and  the  state  and  territory  of  Mosquito  for 
about  two  centuries,  but  the  British  government 
does  not  claim  uominion  in  Mosquito;  and  her  gov- 
ernment would,  with  great  pleasure,  co-operate  in 
assisting  any  company  to  establish  by  canal  or  rail- 


POLITICAL    C  O  N  r  K  O  V  K  R  S  I  E  S 


way,  the  proposed  communication,  and  that  with 
regard  to  the  port  of  Greytown,  at  the  mouth  of  the 
river  St.  John,  her  majesty's  government  would  fully 
undertake  to  obtain  the  consent  of  Mosquito  to  such 
arrangements  as  would  render  that  port  entirely  ap- 
plicable, and  on  the  principles  above  mentioned  to 
the  purposes  of  such  a  sea  to  sea  communication." 

Fearing  that  not  occupying  in  their  own  right, 
the  British  government  might  pretend  to  occupy  in 
the  right  of  another,  the  following  words  were  in- 
serted in  the  treaty,  which  in  the  opinion  of  presi- 
dent Taylor's  entire  cabinet  would  defeat  any  such 
claim.  "Nor  will  either  make  use  of  any  protection 
which  either  affords,  or  may  afford,  or  any  alliance 
which  either  has,  or  may  have,  to  or  with  any  state 
or  people  for  the  purpose  of  erecting  or  maintaining 
any  such  fortifications,  or  of  occupying,  fortifying  or 
colonizing  Nicaragua,  Costa  Rica,  the  Mosquito 
coast  or  any  part  of  Central  America,  or  of  assum- 
ing or  exercising  dominion  over  the  same."  But  now, 
said  Mr.  Collamer,  "Great  Britain  tries  to  read  those 
words  out  of  the  bond  and  argue  as  if  they  were  not 
there.  They  slur  them  over.  The  opinion  of  the 
queen's  advocate  is  based  upon  the  supposition  that 
those  words  are  not  in  the  treaty.  Lord  Clarendon 
ignores  their  existence  and  says  the  treaty  must  be 
construed  by  the  letter  of  Lord  Palmerston  to  Mr. 
Lawrence,  which  did  not  contain  those  words." 

Senator  Seward  declared  that  he  would  stand  by 
the  treaty  and  insist  upon  its  enforcement,  and  that 
if  we  could  not  stand  and  hold  the  British  to  this 
treaty,  he  was  ready,  then,  for  the  assertion  and 
maintenance  of  the  Monroe  doctrine;    that  he  be- 


UNITED    STATES    -  G  U  E  AT     BRITAIN.      105 

lieved  the  country  demanded  peace,  which  he  would 
mamtain,  but,  at  the  same  time,  we  must  maintain 
the  national  rights;  the  continental  rights,  o^ 
our  positiort,  and  that  he  believed  congress  would 
be  ready  to  take  either  form  which,  on  due  consid- 
eration, should  be  found  to  be  the  one  most  prac- 
ticable and  wise.  As  an  exposition  of  the  Monroe 
doctrine,  as  laid  down  by  President  Monroe  in  his 
annual  message  in  [823,  senator  Cass  said  the  prin  ' 
ciples  involved  in  that  doctrine  are: 

1.  "That  it  is  impossible  for  the  allied  powers  to 
extend  their  political  system  to  any  part  of  Ameri- 
ca without  endangering  our  peace  and  happiness 
and  equally  impossible,  therefore,  that  we  should 
behold  such  interference  with  indifference. 

2.  That  the  occasion  had  been  judged  proper 
for  asserting  as  a  principle,  in  which  the  rights  and 
interests  of  the  United  States  were  involved;  that 
the  American  continents  by  the  free  and  indepen- 
dent condition,  which  they  had  assumed  and  main- 
tained, were  henceforth  not  to  be  considered  as  sub- 
jects for  future  colonization  by  any  European 
power." 

Very  little  division  of  sentiment  existed  in  the 
senate  as  to  the  inadmissible  character  of  the  Brit- 
ish claims,  but  negotiations  were  continued  with  the 
desire  and  hope  of  an  amicable  adjustment.  With 
this  view,  a  treaty  was  concluded  in  1856.  that 
\/as  ratified  by  the  American  senate  with  certain 
amendments,  which  Great  Britain  declined  to  ac- 
cept. Great  Britain  afterwards  proposed  a  treaty, 
which  was  unacceptable  to  the  United  States  on  ac- 
count of  a  provision  relating  to    Honduras,   which 

14 


io6 


POLITICAL    CONTROVERSIES 


I  I 


permitted  Great  Britain  to  procure  from  that  gov- 
ernment, by  subsequent  treaty,  such  privileges  or 
concessions  as  she  could,  without  the  knowledge  or 
assent  of  the  United  States.  Great  Britain  pro- 
ceeded, however,  to  conclude  treaties  with  Nicara- 
gua and  Honduras,  by  which  she  relinquished  her 
claims  of  protectorate,  recognized  the  bay  islands  as 
part  of  Honduras,  and  so  fixed  the  relations  between 
herself  and  those  two  governments,  that  president 
Buchanan  announced  in  his  message  in  i860,  the 
satisfactory  results  of  those  treaties,  which,  he  said, 
left  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain  essentially 
in  the  condition  which  they  would  have  occupied  if 
the  amendments  proposed  by  the  United  States  to 
the  treaty  projected  in  1856,  had  been  accepted. 

In  188 1  and  1882,  the  American  government 
made  ineffectual  advances  to  secure  the  acquies- 
cence of  Great  Britain  in  the  abrogation  or  modifi- 
cation of  the  treaty  of  1850.  The  early  disagree- 
ment of  the  two  countries  about  its  construction, 
the  seizure  of  San  Juan,  which  was  viewed  by  the 
American  people  as  a  flagrant  violation  of  the  treaty, 
other  acts  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain,  which  ren- 
dered it  voidable  in  the  opinion  of  the  American 
secretary  of  state  as  communicated  to  the  British 
secretary  in  1882,  and  the  recent  impulse  given  to 
the  desire  for  the  construction  of  the  Nicaraguan 
canal,  invest  the  subject  with  great  and  significant 
interest.  The  consideration  of  the  opinion  of  presi- 
dent Buchanan,  without  lega!  or  constitutional  force, 
uttered  upon  the  verge  of  a  gigantic  civil  war,  when 
enemies  abroad  as  well  as  at  home  were  to  be  pla- 
cated, together  with   all  other  matters  connected 


UNITED    STATES -GREAT     BRITAIN.      107 


with  it,  could  well  be  postponed  by  the  American 
people  to  less  turbulent  and  more  auspicious  times. 

Fisheries. — As  incident  to  the  question  of 
boundary,  we  may  refer  to  that  of  the  right  to  fish 
upon  the  Newfoundland  and  other  coasts  of  the  At- 
lantic Ocean.  Certain  rights  in  this  respect  were 
conceded  to  American  fishermen  by  the  treaty  of 
1784,  and  the  convention  of  October  20th,  18 18. 
Serious  difficulties,  however,  arose  at  different  times 
between  the  British  authorities  and  the  American 
seamen,  as  to  the  true  construction  of  the  treaties 
and  their  asserted  violation.  In  1824,  a  British 
sloop  of  war  seized  several  American  fishing  vessels, 
under  the  pretence  that  they  were  fishing  outside  of 
the  prescribed  fishing  ground.^,  and  this  conduct 
gave  rise  to  bitter  complaints  on  the  part  of  the  suf- 
ferers, and  to  investigation  on  the  part  of  each  gov- 
ernment, in  which  the  proof  on  the  one  side  was 
contradicted  by  that  on  the  other. 

In  the  summer  of  1852,  the  troubles  on  the  coast 
assumed  a  more  menacing  aspect.  The  British 
authorities,  claiming  the  right  to  exclude  American 
fisheri-nen  from  the  bays  and  inlets  of  the  British 
possessions,  supported  their  claim  by  an  armed  na- 
val force.  The  United  States,  regarding  this  con- 
duct as  illegal,  dispatched  the  war  steamers,  Prince- 
ton ar.d  Fulton  to  the  coast  of  Nova  Scotia  for  the 
protection  of  the  American  fishermen.  The  difficul- 
ties were  temporarily  settled  by  mutual  concessions 
and  in  1854,  a  treaty  was  ratified  containing  recipro- 
cal stipulations  with  regard  to  the  fisheries  upon 
the  designated  coasts. 

In   1 87 1,  the  treaty  of  Washington   placed  the 


111 


108 


POLITICAI-    CONTROVERSIES 


1 1 

! 


fisheries  upon  a  broad  and  liberal  basis.  It  stipu- 
lated that  "the  inhabitants  of  the  United  State? 
should  have  in  common  with  British  subjects,  for  the 
term  often  years  and  until  two  years  notice  thereafter 
of  a  wish  to  abrogate  the  stipulation  given  by  the 
one  party  to  the  other,  the  liberty  to  take  fish  of  every 
kind  except  shell  fish,  on  the  coasts  and  shores  ^nd 
in  the  bays,  harbors,  and  creeks  of  the  provinces,  o^ 
Quebec,  Nova  Scotia  and  New  Brunswick  and  the 
colony  of  Prince  Edward's  Island  and  the  several 
islands  adjacent  thereto,  without  being  restricted  to 
any  distance  from  the  shore,  with  permission  to  land 
upon  the  coasts  and  shores  and  islands  also  upon 
the  Magdalen  islands  for  the  purpose  of  drying  their 
nets  and  curing  their  fish,  provided  that  in  so  doing, 
they  do  not  interfere  with  the  rights  of  private  prop- 
erty, or  with  the  British  fishermen  in  the  peaceable 
use  of  any  part  of  the  said  coasts  in  their  occupancy 
for  the  me  purpose.  The  liberty  to  apply  only  to 
the  sea  fishery,  reserving  to  British  fishermen  the 
salmon  and  shad  fisheries,  and  all  other  fisheries  in 
rivers  and  the  mouths  of  rivers." 

A  reciprocal  liberty  was  extended  to  British 
subjects  on  the  eastern  sea  coast  and  shores  of  the 
United  States  north  of  the  39th  parallel  of  north 
latitude  and  of  the  islands  adjacent  thereto  and  in 
the  bays,  harbors  and  creeks  of  the  said  coasts  and 
shores.  Certain  places  reserved  irom  the  common 
right  of  fishing  under  the  treaty  of  1854,  were 
excluded  from  the  operation  of  the  above  provisions. 
It  was  further  stipulated  that  for  the  period  above 
mentioned,  fish  oil  and  fish  of  all  kinds,  except  fish 
of  the  inland  lakes  and  of  the  riveri  falling  into  them 


*?•'? 


UNTIED    STATES      GREAT     BRITAIN.      109 


e 
h 


and  except  fish  preserved  in  oil,  being  the  produce 
of  the  fisheries  of  the  United  States  or  of  the  Do-, 
minion  of  Canada  or  of  Prince  Edward's  Island,  shall 
be!  admitted  into  each  country  respectively,  free  of 
duty.  'i'   ■  ^-^■'' .  ''■  ■'■'  ' '         '-■     ■'.'  '-  ' '' 

The  negotiators  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain 
claimed  that  their  government  was  not  obtaining  an 
equivalent  for  the  above  concessions  made  by  them, 
but,  without  the  justice  of  such  claim  being  admitted 
by  the  United  States,  it  was  agreed  to  submit  the 
question  to  a  board  of  commissioners  to  be  appoint- 
ed as  follows:  one  by  the  president  of  the  United 
States,  one  by  her  Britannic  Majesty  and  one  by 
the  two  governments  conjointly,  and  in  the  event  of 
failure  to  make  such  appointment  within  three 
months  after  the  requisite  legislative  action,  it  was 
to  be  made  by  the  Austrian  representative  in  Lon- 
don. This  arrangement  practically  enabled  the 
British  government,  by  declining  under  any  preten- 
ces to  agree  upon  an  umpire  acceptable  to  the 
United  States,  to  devolve  the  selection  upon  the 
Austrian  minister  in  London  within  the  immediate 
reach  of  British  influences.  It  was  further  stipulat- 
ed that  any  sum  that  should  be  awarded  by  the 
board  to  Great  Britain,  should  be  paid  in  a  gross 
sum  in  twelve  months  thereafter. 

The  treaty  laid  down  no  basis  of  computation 
with  regard  to  the  reciprocal  value  of  the  inshore 
fisheries,  which  were  included  within  the  distance  of 
three  miles  from  the  coast  over  which  the  exclusive 
sovereignty  of  each  country  was  supposed  to  ex- 
tend, or  of  the  conceded  privilege  of  landing  to  dry 
nets  and  cure  fish. 


n 


no 


POLITICAL    CONTROVEKSI  KS 


After  a  delay  of  several  years,  a  board  of  com- 
missioners was  duly  organized  at  Halifax,  in  Nova 
Scotia,  the  place  designated  by  the  treaty,  in  Aug- 
ust, 1877.  The  board  consisted  of  Sir  A.  T.  Gait 
designated  by  Great  Britain,  ex-judge  E.  H.  Ke\- 
Jogg  of  Massachusetts  designated  on  the  part  of  the 
United  States,  and  Mr.  Delfosse,  the  Austrian  ap- 
pointee. Within  the  three  months  as  provided  by 
the  treaty  ineffectual  attempts  had  been  made  to 
agree  upon  the  third  commissioner.  The  United 
States  suggested  and  were  willing  to  accept  either 
the  French.  Russian,  Spanish,  Bra2ilian  or  Mexican 
minister  at  Washington  or  the  minister  of  the  Neili- 
erlands.  The  British  government  proposed  Mr. 
Delfosse,  the  Belgian  minister,  and,  in  the  course  of 
the  correspondence  upon  the  subject,  proposed  that 
the  British  and  American  ministers  at  the  Hague 
should  designate  some  Dutch  citizen  as  the  third 
commissioner.  In  replying  to  this  proposition,  Mr. 
Fish  said:  "I  will  not  either  accept  or  decline  until  I 
have  an  opportunity  of  conferring  with  the  presi- 
dent. It  is  a  very  unusual  proposition.  The  Hague 
is  within  a  few  hours  by  post  of  London,  and  some 
twelve  to  sixteen  days  from  here,  and  if  we  should 
re.sort  to  telegraph,  it  would  be  very  expensive  and 
all  pass  through  and  be  read  in  the  British  post-of- 
fice. We  could  therefore  have  no  confidential  com- 
munication with  our  minister,  who  is  also  compara- 
tively a  stranger  in  Holland,  having  been  there  but 
a  short  time,  and  not  speaking  the  language,  has 
probably  not  very  extensive  acquaintance.  I  must 
frankly  say  that  I  considered  the  proposition  as  one 
intended  to  be  rejected  in  order  to  throw  the  ap- 
pointment on  the  Austrian  minister  at  London." 


UNITED    STATES-GREAT    BRITAIN.       iii 


The  British  minister  yt  Washington  declared 
that  the  Canadian  government  was  opposed  to  the 
selection  of  a  foreign  minister  resident  in  the  United 
States,  and  would  prefer  to  this,  the  appointment  by 
the  Austrian  minister  in  London;  that  his  own  gov- 
ernment had  equally  at  heart  with  the  United  States 
the  settlement  of  the  question,  and  that  delay  had 
been  caused  by  neither  party  proposing  a  commis- 
sioner who  was  acceptable  to  the  other. 

The  disagreement,  as  we  have  seen,  finally  re- 
sulted in  the  selection  of  the  commissioner  proposed 
and  desired  by  Great  Britain,  and  if  this  was  ac- 
complished by  British  finesse,  the  best  time  to  have 
guarded  against  it  was  at  the  formation  of  the  treaty. 

The  amount  claimed  by  the  British  case,  present- 
ed to  the  board,  exceeded  fourteen  millions  of  dol- 
lars, and  on  the  23d  day  of  November,  a  majority  of 
the  bo.ird,  Judge  Kellogg  dissenting,  awarded  $5,- 
500,000  in  favor  of  the  claimants.  In  his  dissenting 
opinion.  Judge  Kellogg  said  that  he  deemed  it  his 
duty  to  state  that  it  is  questionable  whether  it  is 
competent  for  the  board  to  make  an  award  under  the 
treaty,  except  with  the  unanimous  consent  of  its 
members.  The  treaty  itself  was  silent  upon  the 
question  of  unanimity,  while  it  expressly  stipulated 
with  regard  to  the  Geneva  arbitration  and  the  com- 
mission to  be  held  at  Washington,  that  a  majority 
of  the  commissioners  could  decide.  Hence  it  is  ar- 
gued that  if  unanimity  was  not  required,  it  would 
have  been  expressly  so  stated  in  the  treaty. 

Aside  from  the  question  of  unanimity,  the  award 
was  received  in  the  United  States  with  universal 
surprise    and   indignation.      When   the  joint  high 


' 


Its 


P  O  I.  IT  I  C  A  L    CON  T  R  O  V  K  K  S  I  E  S 


commission  of  1871  was  in  session,  the  best  offer  the 
British  members  could  obtain  for  a  settlement  of  the 
fishery  question,  was  the  payment  of  one  million  of 
dollars  by  the  United  States  for  the  perpetual  en- 
joyment of  a  full  and  absolute  right  in  common  to 
all  the  Canadian  fisheries,  without  the  admission  of 
Canadian  fish  free  of  duty  into  the  markets  of  the 
United  States.  The  British  commissioners  declined 
acceding  to  any  adjustment  that  did  not  provide  for 
such  admission,  and  finally  free  fish  and  free  mar- 
kets were  agreed  upon,  with  a  provision  that  a  com- 
mission should  meet  at  Halifax  to  determine  if  any- 
thing should  be  paid  by  the  United  States  to  equal- 
ize the  value  of  the  conceded  privileges. 

Anterior  to  the  reciprocity  treaty  of  1854,  agents 
of  the  two  governments  had  inquired  into  the  rela- 
tive values  of  free  fish  markets  on  the  one  side  and 
free  fishery  on  the  other,  and  by  that  treaty,  which, 
however,  extended  reciprocity  to  other  branches  of 
comrherce,  the  reciprocal  privileges  were  virtually 
offset.  The  treaty  after  ten  years  could  be  abro- 
gated by  either  party  on  twelve  months  notice,  and 
was  so  terminated  by  the  United  States  in  March, 
1866,  very  much  to  the  gratification  of  the  Ameri- 
can fishermen,  who  had  found  it  operating  greatly 
to  their  disadvantage.  Instead  of  looking  to  the 
Halifax  commission,  the  British  government  pro- 
posed another  treaty  of  reciprocity,  which  would 
have  superceded  it,  and  in  1873,  dispatched  an 
agent  to  Washington,  where,  aided  by  a  distin- 
guished statesman  sent  by  the  Dominion  of  Canada, 
a  treaty  of  reciprocity  was  concluded  with  the  state 
department,  but  which  was  rejected  by  the  senate. 


UNITED    STATES  -GRK  A  r     BRITAIN.      113 


This  treaty  contained  the  former  provision  of  free 
markets.  .    . 

The  equality  of  these  privileges  and  their  rela- 
tive pecuniary  value  were,  as  affecting  the  American 
side,  presented  with  great  clearness  in  a  report  sub- 
mitted to  the  senate  in  May,  1878,  by  Senator  Ham- 
lin, formerly  vice-president  of  the  United  States,  as 
chairman  of  the  committee  on  foreij^n  affairs.  It 
was  argued  that  the  custom  house  recr^ipts  showed 
that  under  the  operation  of  the  trer*cy,  duties  had 
been  annually  remitted  from  1873  to  1877,  to  the 
amount  of  nearly  ^350.000,  in  favor  of  Canadian 
fishermen;  that  to  this  amount  the  Halifax  award 
now  added  nearly  a  half  million  more  of  dollars  per 
annum  for  these  years,  making  an  annual  aggregate 
of  more  tlian  eight  hundred  thousand  dollars,  paya- 
ble in  gold  coin,  as  compensation  for  the  privilege 
of  the  in-shore  fisheries,  which,  according  to  the 
most  reliable  statistics,  did  not  add  twenty-five 
thousand  dollars  to  the  profits  of  the  American  fish- 
ermen, and  in  no  view  could  be  double  that  amount; 
that  in  addition  to  this,  the  treaty  gave  the  Cana- 
dian fishermen  the  right  of  the  in-shore  fisheries  in 
the  waters  of  the  United  States  north  of  the  thirty- 
ninth  parallel  of  latitude.  In  twelve  years,  it  was 
insisted,  that  the  remission  of  duties  alone  would, 
allowing  a  slight  increase  for  each  year,  amount  to 
$4,500,000,  which,  with  the  addition  of  the  Halifax 
award,  would  make  a  total  of  $10,000,000,  which,  at 
four  per  cent  interest,  would  give  an  annual  pay- 
ment of  ^400,000,  for  a  privilege  which  cannot,  at 
the  most,  be  of  an  annual  value  of  fifty  thousand 
dollars,  and  that  this  annual  payment  exceeded  the 
>5 


^mmm 


|i  ' 


114 


rOMTICAI.    tONTKOVEKSI  KS 


lar^re  amount  annually  paid  as  bounties  during  the 
first  seventy  years  of  the  government  for  the  en- 
couragement of  American  fishermen. 

In  alluding  to  the  appointment  of  the  third  com- 
missioner, Mr.  Fish,  who  was  one  of  the  American 
commissione  s  on  the  joint  high  commission,  said: 
"I  had,  however,  no  idea  that  an  award  of  more 
than  $300,000  or  $400,000  could  be  made  against 
the  United  States.  I  never  regarded  the  in-shore 
fisheries  of  great  commercial  value,  but  I  thought  it 
very  desirable  that  this  cause  of  irritation  should  be 
permanently  removed.  I  believed  that  we  had 
given  the  Canadians  an  equivalent;  that  an  award 
of  a  few  hundred  thousand  dollars  would  be  rather 
for  the  purpose  of  .soothing  their  feelings,  than  as  a 
just  compensation  for  the  difference  between  con- 
cessions given  and  received."  =      :     ' ' 

Although  the  amount  of  the  award  so  far  exceed- 
ed the  expectations  and  was  so  exorbitant  in  the 
opinion  of  the  American  people.  President  Hayes 
promptly  communicated  the  result  to  the  senate  a.- 
companied  by  a  communication  from  Mr.  Evarts, 
secretary  of  state,  in  which  the  latter  referred  to 
the  question  of  unanimity,  but  suggested  that  an 
appropriation  should  be  made  for  the  payment  of 
the  award  and  that,  before  the  close  of  the  year,  the 
attention  of  the  British  government  should  be  called 
to  such  view  as  congress  should  take  of  the  award, 
its  payment,  and  the  measure  of  value  which  it  in- 
volved. By  this  course,  it  was,  doubtless,  intended 
to  throw  the  decision  of  the  question  of  unanimity 
upon  the  British  government,  and  also  of  the  justice 
of  the  amount  awarded,  in  a  shape  to  prevent  the 


UNIT  K  I)    S  T  AT  K  S      (;  K  E  A  T     11  R  I  lA  I  N. 


"5 


award  from  having  any  weight  in  subsequent  nego- 
tiations. Congress  responded  to  the  suggestions  of 
the  secretary,  who  communicated  the  views  of  his 
own  government,  to  Great  Britain.  Lord  Salisbury, 
the  British  minister  of  foreign  affairs,  replied  that 
his  government  appeared  before  the  tribunal  of  ar- 
bitration as  litigants,  had  presented  a  claim  for  fif- 
teen millions  of  dollars;  had  supported  it  as  far  as 
practicable  by  evidence;  that  his  government  did 
not  feel  inclined  to  advance  any  opinion  adverse  or 
favorable  to  the  decision  made  by  a  majority  of  the 
commissioners  upon  the  affidavits  and  depositions 
which  had  been  submitted  to  them;  that  his  gov- 
ernment, having  been  litigants,  cannot  be  judges  of 
appeal;  that  the  decision  of  the  majority  within  the 
limits  of  the  matter  submitted  to  them,  is  under  the 
treaty,  without  appeal,  and  that  in  maintaining  their 
cause  "their  computations  have  been  totally  differ- 
ent in  method  and  result  from  those  which  the 
American  counsel  sustained." 

As  this  communication  closed  all  expectation  of  a 
modification  of  the  award  either  on  the  ground  of 
unanimity  or  exorbitance,  and  clearly  indicated  the 
position  of  the  British  government  in  reference  to  it, 
the  American  minister  in  London  transmitted  to 
the  British  minister  the  following  letter: 

"Legation  of  the  United  States,  { 
London,  Nov.  21,  1878.     ( 
My  Lord:— 

I  have  been  instructed  by  the  president  of 
the  United  States  to  tender  to  her  Majesty's  gov- 
ernment the  sum  of  ^5,500,000  in  gold  coin,  this  be- 
ing the  sum  named  by  the  two  concurring  members 
of  the  Fisheries  Commission,  lately  sitting  at  Hali- 


Ii6 


POLITICAL    CONTROVERSIES 


;ii    i>  I 


fax  under  the  authority  imparted  thereto  by  the 
treaty  of  Washington,  to  be  paid  by  the  government 
of  the  United  States  to  the  government  of  her  Brit- 
annic Majesty.  I  am  also  instructed  by  the  presi- 
dent to  say  that  such  payment  is  made  upon  the 
ground  that  the  government  of  the  United  States 
desires  to  place  the  maintenance  of  good  faith  in 
treaties,  and  the  security  and  value  of  arbitration 
between  nations,  above  all  question  in  its  relations 
with  her  Britannic  Majesty's  government,  as  with 
all  other  governments.  Under  this  motive,  the  gov- 
ernment of  the  United  States  decides  to  separate 
the  question  of  withholding  payment  from  consid- 
erations touching  the  obligation  of  this  payment 
which  have  been  presented  to  her  Majesty's  govern- 
ment in  the  correspondence,  and  which  it  reserves 
and  insists  upon.  I  am,  besides,  instructed  by  the 
President  to  say  that  the  government  of  the  United 
States  deems  it  of  the  greatest  importance  to  the 
common  and  friendly  interests  of  the  two  govern- 
ments in  all  future  treatment  of  any  questions  relat- 
ing to  the  North  American  fisheries,  that  her  Brit- 
annic Majesty's  government  should  be  distinctly  ad- 
vised thnt  the  government  of  the  United  States  can- 
not accept  the  result  of  the  Halifax  Commission  as 
furnishing  any  just  measure  of  the  value  of  the  par- 
ticipation by  cur  citizens  in  the  in-shore  fisheries  of 
the  British  provinces,  and  protests  against  actual 
payment,  now  made,  being  considered  by  her  Maj- 
esty's government  as  in  any  sense  an  acquiescence 
in  such  measure,  or  as  warranting  any  inference  to 

that  effect.     I  have,  etc., 

John  Welsh." 


UNTIED    STATES-GREAT    BRITAIN.      117 


to 


Soon  after  the  payment  of  the  award,  it  was  al- 
leged by  Professor  Hind,  of  Nova  Scotia,  who  had 
been  appointed  to  compile  an  analytical  index  to 
documents  of  the  Halifax  commission,  that  the 
award  was  secured  by  false  evidence  and  by  forced 
documents  which  would  dishonor  the  liritish  gov- 
ernment, if  such  culpability  was  not  redressed.  His 
accusations  were  met  by  the  Dominion  officials  by 
charging  him  with  an  attempt  to  levy  blackmail. 
Indignant  at  this,  in  a  letter  addressed  to  Sir  John 
A.  Mac  Donald,  the  Premier,  he  says: 

*' Allow  me  further  to  ask,  does  faUc  cry  of  black- 
mail shelter  you  from  the  responsibility  of  a  thor- 
ough and  public  investigation  into  the  extent  and 
ramifications  of  tl:e  grossest  corruption  among  the 
subordinates  in  the  several  departmental  offices  of 
the  Government,  to-wit:  In  the  forgery  and  falsifi- 
cation of  fishery  statistics;  in  the  presentation  of 
these  forged  statistics  to  a  judicial  tribunal  upon 
oath;  in  reproducing  these  forged  statistics  once 
again  in  18S0  under  your  own  eye  and  for  a  special 
purpose.  These  are  facts  which  shake  the  honor 
and  the  credit  of  the  country  until  atoned  for,  facts 
which  cannot  be  refuted,  which  are  vastly  injurious 
to  the  maritime  powers,  and  which,  if  passed  over, 
mock  at  all  honor  in  the  Government  and  all  faith 
in  law.  Will  you  now  afford  me  at  once  a  fair  and 
open  opportunity  for  proving  my  statements  before 
a  parliamentary  committee,  where  you  can  dissect 
my  character  and  examine  my  motives  to  any  ex- 
tent you  choose." 

His  representations  to  the  home  government  met 
with  the  following  response: 


;I1 


ii8 


POLITICAL    CONTROVERSIES 


.      "Foreign  Office,  Dec.  5,  1878. 
Sir:— 

I  am  directed  by  the  Marquis  of  Salisbury  to 

acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  further  letter  of  the 
25th  ult.,  and  I  aA  to  state  to  you  in  reply  that  the 
United  States  government  have  paid  her  majesty's 
government  the  sum  of  $5,500,000,  awarded  by  the 
Halifax  Fisheries  commission,  and  that,  in  conse- 
quence, the  question  cannot  now  be  re-opened.  I 
am  to  add  that  Lord  Salisbury  much  regrets  that 
his  time  is  too  fully  occupied  to  give  him  any  oppor- 
tunity of  seeing  you  at  present." 

In  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  the  treaty 
of  1 87 1,  the  British  government  was  notified  by  the 
United  States  in  1883,  that  the  articles  relating  to 
the  fisheries,  would  terminate  at  the  expiration  of 
two  years. 

Before  the  settlement  of  the  Halifax  award,  an 
other  question  sprang  up  between  the  two  govern- 
ments out  of  the  action  of  the  local  authorities  or 
the  fishing  population  of  Newfoundland  in  interfer- 
ing with  or  driving  off  twenty  American  fishing  ves- 
sels engaged  in  the  prosecution  of  their  business  at 
Fortune  Bay.  An  attempt  was  made  to  justify  this 
conduct  on  the  ground  that  the  American  fishermen 
were  violating  certain  local  laws  of  the  province,  but 
the  American  secretary  of  state  repelled  the  idea 
that  local  laws  could  impair  the  rights  conferred  by 
the  treaty  between  the  two  governments,  and  in- 
sisted that  if,  in  the  common  interest  of  preserving 
the  fishery  and  preventing  conflicts  between  the 
fishermen,  regulations  by  some  competent  authority 
were  required,  such  authority  can  only  be  found  in  a 
joint  convention  on  the  part  of  the  two  governments. 


UNITED    STATES    -GREAT    BRITAIN.      119 

The  British  minister,  in  his  reply,  admitted  that,  as 
regards  the  fisheries,  British  sovereignty  is  limited 
in  its  scope  by  the  engagements  of  the  treaty  of 
Washington,  which  cannot  be  modified  or  affected 
by  municipal  election;  that  if  a  law  is  inadvertently 
passed,  which  conflicts  with  treaty  obligations,  as 
soon  as  ascertained,  the  mistake  should  be  correct- 
ed; that  he  was  not  aware  that  any  recent  colonial 
laws  were  complained  of,  but  if  there  were  any  of 
that  character,  her  majesty's  government  would  con- 
sider any  representations  upon  the  subject  in  a 
friendly  spirit,  in  the  hope  of  coming  to  a  satisfac- 
tory understanding. 

Subsequent  negotiations  resulted  in  the  liquida- 
tion of  the  claims  of  the  aggrieved  fishermen,  and 
in  his  message,  in  December,  1881,  President  Arthur 
stated  that  "  earlv  in  the  vear  the  Fortune  Bav 
claims  were  satisfactorily  settled  by  the  British  gov- 
ernment paying  in  full  the  sum  of  ;^i  5,000  ($75,000) 
most  of  which  has  alreadv  been  distributed."  .; 


M'.M 


CHAPTER   V. 


I 


III 


THE  AMERICAN  CIVIL  WAR -JOINT  HIGH  COMMISSION 
-  ITS  RESULTS -BRITISH  AND  AMERICAN  NEUTRAL 
ITY. 

Upon  the  election  of  Lincoln  to  the  presidency 
of  the  United  States  in  i860,  ten  of  the  southern 
states,  one  after  the  other,  passed  ordinances  of  se- 
cession, repudiated  all  obligations  to  the  national 
government,  confederated,  and  proceeded  to  claim 
and  exercise  the  powers  of  an  independent  nation. 
They  promptly  seized  or  captured  the  national  forts, 
property  and  troops  within  their  limits,  and  the  al- 
ternative of  peaceable  recognition  of  the  confederate 
government  or  civil  war  for  the  preservation  of  the 
union,  was  precipitated  upon  the  national  govern- 
ment. Aroused  at  last  to  a  consciousness  of  its  per- 
ilous condition  and  of  the  magnitude  and  impor- 
tance of  the  interests  involved,  the  national  govern- 
ment, sustained  by  the  union  sentiment  of  the  coun- 
try, applied  itself  with  zeal  to  combat  the  vast  in- 
surrectionarv  movement.  After  an  immense  ex- 
penditure  of  life  and  treasure,  the  tremendous  con- 
flict culminated  in  1865,  in  the  complete  triumph  of 
the  union  cause,  while  the  seceding  and  revolution- 
ary states  were  left  exhausted  by  their  vast  and  un- 
successful efforts,  and  with  the  system  of  slavery, 
which  they  aimed  to  perpetuate,  utterly  destroyed. 

At  the  commencement  of  the  contest,  both  par- 
ties hastened  to  secure  strength  and  sympathy  from 
abroad,  and  both  were  deeply  interested  in  the 
course  of  Great  Britain. 

As  to  the  position  of  the  latter,  the  American 


UNITED    STATES- -GREAT    BRITAIN.      121 


minister  in  London,  wrote  on  the  9th  of  April,  1861^ 
that  Lord  John  Russell,  principal  secretary  of  for- 
eign affairs,  had  assured  him  with  great  earnestness 
that  there  was  not  the  slightest  disposition  in  the 
British  government  to  grasp  at  any  advantages 
which  might  be  supposed  to  arise  from  the  unpleas- 
ant domestic  differences  in  the  United  States,  and 
that  they  would  be  highly  gratified  if  those  differ- 
ences were  adjusted  and  the  union  restored  to  its 
former  unbroken  position.  But  when  pressed  with 
the  importance  of  both  England  and  France  abstain- 
ing, at  least  for  a  considerable  time,  from  doing 
what,  by  exciting  groundless  hopes,  might  widen 
the  breach,  still  thoughL  capable  of  being  closed, 
he  seemed  to  think  the  matter  was  not  ripe  for  de- 
cision one  way  or  the  other,  and  remarked  that 
what  he  had  said,  was  all  that  at  present,  it  was  in 
his  power  to  say." 

On  the  13th  of  May,  and  after  the  agents  of  the 
confederate  government  had  been  favored  by  Lord 
Ru.ssel  with  an  unofificial  interview,  the  queen  issued 
a  proclamation,  in  which  the  confederates  were 
spoken  of  as  belligerents,  and  the  strictest  neutral- 
ity between  the  contending  parties  was  enjoined 
upon  Briti.sh  subjects.  This  proclamation  was  un- 
satisfactory to  the  American  government. 

Mr.  Charles  Francis  Adams  was  appointed  min- 
ister to  the  court  of  St.  James  in  the  spring  of  1861. 
and  in  his  letter  of  instructions,  dated  the  icth  of 
April,  he  was  informed  that  he  would  represent  his 
country,  and  the  whole  of  it  at  London,  and  that  if 
he  found  the  British  government  tolerating  the  ap- 
plication of  the  so-called  seceding  states  for  recog- 
16 


n 


'iii 


122 


POLITICAL    CONTROVERSIES 


11  i 


nition,  or  even  wavering  about  it,  they  were  to  be 
promptly  assured  that  if  they  determine  upon  such 
recognition,  they  may  at  the  same  time  prepare  to 
enter  into  an  alliance  with  the  enemies  of  the  repub- 
lic. 

While  thus  expressing  himself  with  decision  as 
to  the  course  to  be  pursued  under  existing  circum- 
stances, he  explains  his  own  views  as  to  recognition 
in  the  following  language: 

"We  freely  admit  that  a  nation  may  and 
even  ought  to  recognize  a  new  state  which  has  ab- 
solutely and  beyond  question,  effected  its  indepen- 
dence, and  permanently  established  its  sovereignty, 
and  that  a  recognition  in  such  a  case,  affords  no 
just  cause  of  offence  to  the  government  of  the  coun- 
try from  which  the  new  state  has  so  detached  itself. 
On  the  other  hand,  we  insist  that  a  nation  which 
recognizes  a  revolutionary  state,  with  a  view  to  aid 
in  effecting  its  sovereignty  and  independence,  com- 
mits a  great  wrong  against  the  nation  whose  integ- 
rity is  thus  invaded,  and  makes  itself  responsible  for 
a  just  and  ample  redress." 

The  Lord  Chancellor  having  in  a  speech  char- 
acterized the  rebellious  portion  of  the  United  States 
as  a  belligerent  state,  and  the  war  going  on  as  jus- 
tuin  bcllttm,  and  Mr.  Adams  having  alluded  to  it. 
Lord  Russell  replied  that  he  thought  more  stress 
was  laid  upon  these  events  than  they  deserved. 
*^^  '  fact  was,  that  a  necessity  seemed  to  exjst  to  de- 
nude course  of  the  government  in  regard  to  the 
T>ation  of  the  subjects  of  Great  Britain  in  the 


r 


^i-  iC 


iiiipc.-.ing  conflict.      To  that  end.  the  legal  ques- 
tions involved  had  been  referred  to  those  officers, 


UNITED    STATES-GREAT     BRITAIN.       123 


the  most  conversant  with  them,  and  their  advice 
had  been  taken  in  shaping  the  result.  Their  con- 
clusion had  been  that,  as  a  question  oi  fact^  a  war 
existed.  In  many  preceding  cases,  much  less  for- 
midable demonstrations  had  been  required.  Under 
such  circumstances  it  seemed  scarcely  possible  to 
avoid  speaking  of  this  in  a  technical  sense  ^^justum 
bellnm,  that  is,  a  war  of  sides,  without  in  any  way 
implying  an  opinion  of  its  justice,  or  to  withhold  an 
e'ndeavor,  as  far  as  possible^  to  bring  the  manage- 
ment of  it  within  the  rules  of  modern  civilized  war- 
fare. This  was  all  that  was  contemplated  by  the 
queen's  proclamation.  It  was  designed  to  show  the 
purpbrt  of  existing  laws,  and  to  explain  to  British 
subjects  their  liabilities  in  case  they  should  engage 
in  the  war.  .  • 

While  these  explanations  were  being  made  in 
Great  Britain,  Mr.  Seward,  the  American  secretary 
of  state,  in  a  letter,  dated  the  3d  of  June,  communi- 
cated to  Mr.  Adams,  the  views  and  apprehensions 
of  his  own  government.  He  said:  "Every  instruc- 
tion you  have  received  from  this  department  is  full 
of  evidence  of  the  fact  that  the  principal  danger 
in  the  present  insurrection  which  the  president  has 
apprehended  was  that  of  foreign  interventibn^  aid  or 
sympathy,  and  especially  of  such  intervention,  aid 
or  sympathy  011  the  part  of  Great  Britain." 

He  proceeds  to  enumerate  the  causes  of  this  ap- 
prehension, alluding  to  the  guarded  reserve  of  the 
British  secretary,  when  Mr.  Dallas,  the  then  Amer- 
ican minister,  presented  the  American  protest  against 
recognition  of  the  insurgents,  which  seemed  to  im- 
ply that  in  some  unexplained  condition,  such  a  rec- 


124 


POLITIC  A  I.    CON'l  ROVERSIES 


S^l! 


1 11  ii ; 

ilii  ■ 
111' 

¥\ 
BUI 


III  i 


ognition  might  be  made;  to  his  declaration  that  he 
was  not  unwilling  to  receive  the  so-called  commis- 
sioners of  the  insurgents  unofficially;  to  the  engage- 
ment with  France,  binding  both  governments  to 
adopt  the  same  course  of  procedure  in  regard  to  the 
insurrection,  without  consulting  the  American  gov 
ernment,  and  to  the  proclamation  of  the  queen,  is- 
sued on  the  very  day  that  Mr.  Adams  arrived  in 
London  without  affording  him  the  interview  prom- 
ised before  any  decisive  action  should  be  taken,  and 
which,  by  its  tenor,  although  perhaps  vaguely,  still 
seemed  to  recognize  the  insurgents  as  a  belligerent 
national  power. 

Unexplained  and  unmodified,  the  proclamation, 
said  Mr.  Seward,  "would  leave  us  no  alternative  but 
to  regard  the  government  of  Great  Britain  as  ques- 
tioning our  free  exercise  of  all  the  rights  of  self  de- 
fence guaranteed  to  us  by  our  constitution  and  the 
laws  of  nature  and  nations  to  suppress  the  insurrec- 
tion." He  thought,  however,  that  there  were  some 
special  reasons  for  some  little  delay  in  communica- 
ting these  views  to  the  British  government. 

One  of  these  reasons,  was  an  interview,  which  it 
was  presumed  had  taken  place  between  Mr.  Adams 
and  Lord  John  Russell  upon  the  subject. 

While  intent  upon  preventing  foreign  interven- 
tion, the  United  States  were  not  unmindful  of  the 
great  importance  of  excluding  privateering  from  the 
ocean.  On  the  i6th  of  April,  1856,  the  maritime 
powers  of  Europe  in  a  Congress  at  Paris,  came  to  an 
agreement  to  which  other  nations  were  to  be  invit- 
ed to  accede,  which  declared: 

I.     Privateering  is  and  remains  abolished. 


UNITED    STATES  — GREAT     BRITAIN.      125 


an 
it- 


2.  The  neutral  flag  covers  enemy's  goods  with 
the  exception  of  contraband  of  war. 

3.  Neutral  goods,  with  the  exception  of  contra- 
band of  war,  are  not  liable  to  capture  under  enemy's 
flag. 

4.  Blockades,  in  order  to  be  binding,  must  be 
effective;  that  is  to  say,  maintained  by  forces  suffi- 
cient really  to  prevent  access  to  the  coast  of  the 
enemy. 

The  United  States  were  duly  invited  in  1856,  to 
accede  to  this  agreement.  In  1854,  they  had  sub- 
mitted substantially  the  2d  and  3d  propositions  to 
the  maritime  powers  of  Europe  with  a  view  of  being 
incorporated  into  the  law  of  nations,  but  were  un- 
willing to  consent  to  the  abolition  of  privateering 
unless  coupled  with  a  provision  that  the  private 
property  of  individuals,  though  belonging  to  bellig- 
erent states,  should  be  exempt  from  seizure  or  con- 
fiscation bv  national  vessels  encfa<jed   in  maritime 


•&"&' 


war. 


The  season  being  unfavorable  for  procuring  an 
amendment  of  the  declaration  which  was  sought  in 
1856,  the  American  minister  was  instructed  on  the 
24th  of  April,  1861,  to  renew  negotiations  for  the 
accession  of  the  United  States  to  the  declaration  of 
the  Paris  congress  upon  an  equal  footing  with  other 
nations  and  in  the  form  as  originally  proposed.  The 
negotiation,  however,  fell  through.  The  British 
minister  stated  that  in  affixing  his  signature  to  the 
convention,  it  would  be  accompanied  with  the  de- 
claration that  her  majesty  does  not  intend  thereby 
to  undertake  any  engagement,  which  shall  have  any 
bearing,  direct  or  indirect,  on  the  internal  differen- 
ces now  prevailing  in  the  United  States. 


126 


P  ()  L I  T  I C  A  L    C  O  N  r  U  O  V  K  U  }J  I  E  S 


Bi'li 


Such  a  declaration,  the  American  secretary  of 
state  contended,  would  be  virtually  a  new  and  dis- 
tinct article  incorporated  into  the  convention;  that 
it  was  inadmissible  because  it  was  not  mutual,  ap- 
plying only  to  internal  differences  in  the  United 
States,  but  not  to  such  as  existed  or  might  exist  in 
Great  Britain,  and  would  be  a  substantial  and  even 
a  radical  departure  from  the  declaration  of  the  con- 
gress of  Paris,  which  makes  no  exception  in  favor  of 
the  great  powers  that  had  become  parties  to  it,  in 
regard  to  the  bearing  of  their  obligations  upon  the 
internal  differences  which  might  prevail  in  the  do- 
minions of  either  of  them. 

Lord  John  Russell  justified  the  action  of  the  Brit- 
ish government  in  conceding  only  a  qualified  signa- 
ture of  the  convention  on  the  ground  of  preventing 
misapprehension  and  dispute.  He  said:"Her  majesty's 
government,  upon  receiving  intelligence  that  the 
president  had  declared  by  proclamation  his  inten- 
tion to  blockade  the  ports  of  nine  of  the  states  of  the 
union,  and  Mr.  Davis,  speaking  in  the  name  of  those 
nine  states,  had  declared  his  intention  to  issue  let- 
ters of  marque  and  reprisal,  and  having  also  re- 
ceived information  of  the  design  of  both  sid6s  to 
arm.  had  come  to  the  conclusion  that  civil  war  ex- 
isted in  America,  and  her  majesty  had  thereupon 
proclaimed  her  neutrality  in  the  approaching  con- 
test. 

The  government  of  the  United  States,  on  the 
other  hand,  spoke  only  of  unlawful  combinations, 
and  designated  those  concerned  in  them  as  rebels 
and  pirates.  It  would  follow  logically  and  consis- 
tently, from  the  attitude  taken  by  her  majesty's  gov- 


UNTIED    STATES-GREAT    BRITAIN.      127 


crnment,  that  the  so-called  confederate  states,  being 
acknowledged  as  a  belligerent,  might,  by  the  law  of 
nations,  arm  privateers,  and  that  their  privateers 
might  be  regarded  as  the  armed  vessels  of  a  bellig- 
erent. 

With  equal  logic  and  consistency,  it  would  fol- 
low from  the  position  taken  by  the  United  States, 
the  privateers  of  the  Southern  States  might  be  dc- 
cree.l  to  be  pirates,  and  it  might  be  further  argued 
by  the  government  of  the  United  States,  that  a  Eu- 
ropean power  signing  a  convention  with  the  United 
States  declaring  that  privateering  was  and  remains 
abolished,  would  be  bound  to  treat  the  privateers  of 
the  so-called  confederate  states  as  pirates." 

These  views  of  Lord  Russell  had,  doubtless,  oc- 
curred to  the  American  government  and  increased 
the  anxiety  to  prevent  the  confederate  states  from 
being  recognized  as  belligerents,  and  by  the  univer- 
sal suppression  of  privateering,  to  prevent  foreign 
built  vessels  and  crews  from  sweeping  American 
commerce  from  the  ocean  under  the  protection  of 
the  confederate  flag,  and  through  the  agency  of  con- 
federate cruisers  sailing  from  British  ports  through 
the  negligence  or  connivance  of  the  British  govern- 
ment. 

The  confederate  government  was  as  vigilant 
and  prompt  as  its  adversary  in  approaching  foreign 
powers,  and  an  interview  having  taken  place  on  the 
4th  of  May,  1861,  with  the  confederate  commission- 
ers, Messrs.  Yancy,  Mann  and  Rost,  Lord  Russell, 
in  a  letter  to  Lord  Lyon,  the  British  minister  at 
Washington,  thus  refers  to  it:  "One  of  these  gentle- 
men speaking  for  the  others,  dilated  on  the  causes 


128 


POMTICAl.    CONTKOVEKSIES 


I 


which  had  induced  the  southern  states  to  secede 
from  the  northern.  The  principal  of  these  causes, 
he  said,  was  not  slavery,  but  the  very  high  price, 
which,  for  the  sake  of  protecting  the  northern  man- 
ufacturers, the  south  were  obliged  to  pay  for  the 
manufactured  goods  which  they  required.  One  of 
the  first  acts  of  the  southern  congress  was  to  reduce 
these  duties,  and  to  prove  their  sincerity,  he  gave  as 
an  instance  that  Louisiana  had  given  up  altogether 
that  protection  on  her  sugar  which  she  enjoyed  by 
the  legislation  of  the  United  States." 

Lord  Russell  informed  the  commissioners  that 
he  could  hold  no  official  communication  with  the 
Southern  States,  but  that  whenever  the  question  of 
recognition  came  formally  to  be  discussed,  there 
were  two  points  upon  which  inquiry  must  be  made; 
first,  as  to  ability  to  maintain  a  position  as  an  inde- 
pendent .state;  secondly,  as  to  the  relations  which 
they  proposed  to  maintain  with  foreign  states. 

The  action  of  the  British  government  not  satisfy- 
ing their  desires  or  expectations,  the  commissioners 
addre.ssed  a  lengthy  note  to  Lord  Russell  on  the  14th 
of  August,  in  which  they  advert  to  the  position  taken 
in  their  former  interview  as  to  the  motives,  which 
caused  the  secession  of  the  Confederate  states;  they 
express  their  surpri.se  and  regret  at  the  avowal  of 
the  British  government,  that,  in  order  to  the  observ- 
ance of  a  strict  neutrality,  the  public  and  private 
armed  vessels  of  neither  of  the  contending  parties 
would  be  permitted  to  enter  her  majesty's  ports 
with  prizes;  that,  without  disputing  the  right  to 
make  such  regulations,  they  think  it  has  been  un- 
usual to  exercise  it,  and  that  the  practical  operation 


UNTIED    STATES-GREAT    BRITAIN.      139 


les 
rts 
to 
in- 
ion 


of  the  rule  in  this  instance  has  been  favorable  to  the 
government  at  Washington  and  had  crippled  the 
exercise  of  an  undoubted  public  right  of  the  confed- 
erate states,  which  had  commenced  their  career 
without  a  navy.  They  also  combated  the  anti- 
slavery  sentiment  of  England,  and  without  discuss- 
ing the  morality  of  the  institution,  or  the  modes  by 
which  it  had  attained  its  growth  and  position 
in  the  United  States,  they  allege  that  it  was  from  no 
fear  that  the  slaves  would  be  liberated,  that  seces- 
sion took  place;  that  the  very  party  in  power  had 
proposed  to  guarantee  slavery  forever  in  the  states, 
if  the  south  would  remain  in  the  union;  that  Mr. 
Lincoln,  in  his  message,  proposed  no  freedom  to  the 
slave,  but  announced  the  subjection  of  his  owner  to 
the  will  of  the  union,  or  in  other  words  the  will  of 
the  north,  and  that,  even  after  the  battle  of  Bull  Run, 
both  branches  of  congress  at  Washington  passed 
resolutions  that  the  war  was  only  waged  to  uphold 
the  constitution  and  to  enforce  the  laws,  (many  of 
them  pro-slavery)  and  out  of  one  hundred  and  sev- 
enty-two votes  in  the  lower  house,  they  received  all 
but  two,  and  in  the  senate  all  but  one. 

They  intimate  that  in  a  certain  contingency,  this 
policy  of  the  government  at  Washington,  may  be 
changed,  but  submit  that  success  in  producing  so 
abrupt  and  violent  a  destruction  of  a  system  of  la- 
bor which  was  so  extensively  interwoven  with  pub- 
lic prosperity  everywhere,  would  be  visited  with  re- 
sults disastrous  to  the  world  as  well  as  to  the  mas- 
ter and  slave. 

The  British  government  replied  that  it  did  not 
pretend  in  any  way  to  pronounce  a  judgment  on  the 
17 


vjf 


I  ! 


:i 


}A'l 


I^III^U 


m 

I' 


mvm 


'i;ii  'i 


fM 


'30 


r  0  J.  1  T  1 C  A  L    CONTROVERSIES 


questior.s  in  debate  between  the  United  States  and 
their  adversaries,  that  her  majesty's  government 
would  strictly  perform  the  duties  that  belong  to  a 
neutral;  would  not  undertake  to  determine  by  an- 
ticipation what  would  be  the  issue  of  the  contest, 
nor  that  the  independence  of  the  confederacy  would 
be  acknowledged  until  the  fortune  of  arms,  or  the 
more  peaceful  mode  of  negotiation,  shall  have  more 
clearly  determined  the  respective  positions  of  the 
two  belligerents.  r 

On  the  27th  and  30th  of  November,  the  commis- 
sioners again  addressed  the  British  government,  but 
this  time  upon  the  nature  of  the  blockade  of  south- 
ern ports.  Lord  Russell  acknowledged  the  receipt 
of  their  letters,  but  declined  holding  official  commu- 
nication with  them. 

While  the  confederate  commissioners  had  been 
unable  to  commit  the  British  government  to  a  di- 
rect maintenance  of  their  cause,  this  was  nearly  ac- 
complished by  the  indiscreet  zeal  of  Captain  Wilkes 
in  command  of  an  American  ship  of  war.  On  the 
8th  of  November,  he  seized  and  took  awav  from  the 
British  mail  steamer,  Trent,  regardless  of  the  pro- 
tests of  her  commander,  Messrs.  Mason  and  Slidell, 
who  were  on  their  way  to  Europe  to  represent  the 
interests -^f  the  confederate  government.  This  in- 
defensible conduct  created  immense  excitement  in 
Great  Britain,  and  was  followed  by  a  demand  for 
reparation.  ..^/    .  , .-    7*-. 

The  act  of  Captain  Wilkes  was  promptly  dis- 
avowed by  his  government,  the  two  ministers  were 
released  and  permitted  to  proceed  on  their  embassy, 
and  this,  at  one  time  threatening  affair,  was  brought 
to  a  peaceable  and  fortunate  adjustment. 


tor 


UNITED    STATES      GREAT     BRITAIN.       131 

Whatever  opinions  may  exist  as  to  the  secret 
wishes  and  designs  of  the  British  government,  in 
utter  disregard  of  the  queen's  proclamation,  large 
English  commercial  houses  soon  became  deeply  in- 
terested in  managing  the  interests  of  the  confeder- 
ate government,  and  in  contributing  to  its  success. 
Members  of  the  cabinet,  with  professed  regret,  ex- 
pressed the  belief  that  the  maintenance  of  the  union 
and  the  subjugation  of  the  insurgents  was  no  longer 
practicable.  In  culpable  neglect  of  international 
law,  according  to  American  opinion,  vessels  were 
fitted  out  in  British  ports,  and  proceeding  to  sea 
under  the  British  flag,  were  soon  converted  into 
confederate  cruisers  and  actively  engaged  in  plun*- 
dering  the  commerce  of  the  United  States. 

In  writing  to  Mr.  Adams,  August  2,  1862,  Mr. 
Seward,  thus  adverts  to  British  feeling:  "It  is  mani- 
fest in  the  tone  of  the  speeches,  as  well  as  in  the 
general  tenor  of  popular  discussions,  that  neither 
the  responsible  ministers  of  the  house  of  commons 
nor  the  active  portion  of  the  people  of  Great  Britain, 
sympathize  with  this  government,  or  hope,  or  even 
wish  for  its  success  in  suppressing  the  insurrection 
and  that,  on  the  contrary,  the  whole  British  nation, 
speaking  practically,  desire  and  expect  the  dismem- 
berment of  the  republic." 

At  a  subsequent  day,  the  conduct  of  Great  Brit- 
ain in  regard  to  those  cruisers,  became  the  subject 
of  international  controversy,  and  in  rebutting  the 
attempt  of  the  British  minister  to  exculpate  his 
country  for  ^he  depredations  of  one  ot  them,  the 
Alabama,  Mr.  Seward  drew  the  following  picture 
of  the  origin,  career  and  fate  of  that  vessel:  "It  is 


'111! 


132 


POLITICAL    CONTROVERSIES 


indeed  true,  as  Lord  Stanley  has  observed,  that  the 
Alabama,  when  she  left  England,  was  wholly  un- 
armed and  not  fully  equipped  as  a  war  vessel.  It  is 
also  true  that  she  received  an  armament,  a  further 
equipment,  a  commander,  and  a  crew,  in  Angora 
Bay,  Azores,  a  possession  of  the  crown  of  Portugal, 
where  the  British  government  had  no  jurisdiction, 
and  could  exercise  no  lawful  control,  even  if  they 
had  an  opportunity. 

But,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  to  be  remembered 
that  not  only  was  the  vessel  built  at  Liverpool, 
but  the  armament  and  the  supplemental  equipment 
were  built  and  provided  there,  also  simultaneously 
and  by  the  same  British  hands,  and  also  that  the 
commander  and  crew  were  gathered  and  organized 
at  the  same  time  and  at  the  same  place;  the  whole 
vessel,  armament,  equipment,  commander  and  crew 
were  adapted,  each  part  to  the  other,  and  all  were 
prepared  for  one  complete  expedition.  The  parts 
were  fraudulently  separated  in  Liverpool,  to  be  put 
together  elsewhere,  and  they  were  thence  fraudu- 
lently conveyed  to  Angora  Bay,  and  there  put 
fraudulently  together  by  her  majesty's  subjects,  not 
less  in  violation  of  British  than  of  Portuguese  obli- 
gations to  the  United  States.  The  offenders  were 
never  brought  to  justice  by  her  majesty's  govern- 
ment, nor  complained  of  by  the  queen  of  Portugal. 
The  Alabama,  from  the  laying  of  her  timbers  in 
Liverpool  until  her  destruction  by  the  Kearsarge 
off  Cherbourg,  never  once  entered  any  port  or  wat- 
ers of  the  United  States.  Whatever  pretended  com- 
mission she  ever  had  as  a  ship-of-war,  must  have 
been  acquired  in  Great  Britain  or  some  other  foreign 


UNITED    STATES  — GREAT    BRITAIN.      133 


country  at  peace  with  the  United  States  or  on  the 
high  seas.  Nevertheless,  the  Alabama  was  received, 
protected,  entertained  and  supplied  in  her  devasta- 
ting career  in  the  British  ports  of  Capetown  and 
Singapore  in  the  east,  and  when  she  was  finally  sunk 
in  the  British  channel,  her  commander  ?nd  crew 
were,  with  fraudulent  connivance,  rescued  by  Brit- 
ish subjects  and  ostentatiously  entertained  and  ca- 
ressed as  meritorious  but  unfortunate  heroes  at 
Southampton.  With  these  explanations,  I  leave  the 
affair  of  the  Alabama  where  it  was  placed  in  the  rep- 
resentation of  Mr.  Adams." 

After  the  overthrow  of  the  confederate  govern- 
ment, a  protracted  negotiation  arose  with  regard  to 
English  liability  on  account  of  the  depredations  com- 
mitted by  the  Alabama  and  other  cruisers  that 
sailed  from  British  ports. 

In  replying  to  a  dispatch  of  Lord  Stanley,  in 
answer  to  one  of  his,  concerning  the  so-called  Ala- 
bama claims,  in  commenting  upon  the  question  of 
damage,  Mr.  Seward,  on  the  12th  of  January,  1867, 
said:  "The  commercial  losses  of  the  United  States 
which  are  the  immediate  subject  of  the  present  cor- 
respondence, are  only  a  small  part  of  the  damage 
which  this  country  has  sustained  at  the  hands  of 
British  abettors  of  the  insurgents.  But  will  Lord 
Stanley  please  to  refer  to  the  table  in  which  these 
special  losses  are  presented,  showing  ninety-five 
merchant  vessels,  with  ten  millions  of  property,  des- 
troyed by  the  cruisers,  which,  practically,  were  sent 
from  the  British  shores,  and  say  whether  he  be- 
lieves it  possible  that  such  destructive  proceedings 
could  have  occurred  if  Great  Britain  had  not  con- 
ceded belligerent  rights  to  the  insurgents.?" 


.ifi 


Ill 


'34 


POLITICAL    CONTROVERSIES 


The  two  governments,  turning  their  attention  to 
a  settlement  by  means  of  arbitration,  differed  as  to 
its  scope,  not  only  as  to  deciding  upon  the  moral 
liability  of  the  British  government  for  losses  sus- 
tained by  the  depredations  of  the  cruisers  com- 
plained of,  but  also  as  to  the  mode  of  adjusting  oth- 
er questions  of  claims  in  which  the  subjects  or  citi- 
zens of  the  two  governments  were  interested.  The 
negotiation  having  failed,  was  again  renewed,  and 
in  1868,  a  treaty  was  signed  at  London  by  Reverdy 
Johnson,  the  American  minister,  which  provided  for 
a  board  of  commissioners  to  decide  upon  the  claims 
of  the  citizens  of  the  two  governments,  which  had 
arisen  subsequent  to  the  eighth  of  February,  1853. 

This  treaty  was  rejected  by  the  American  Sen- 
ate, and  the  questions  in  controversy  still  remaining 
unadjusted,  in  1871,  Sir  Edward  Thornton,  the  Brit- 
ish minister  at  Washington,  under  instructions  from 
his  government,  proposed  the  appointment  of  a  joint 
high  commission  to  hold  its  session  in  Washington 
"to  treat  of  and  discuss  the  mode  of  settling  the  dif- 
ferent questions  which  have  arisen  out  of  the  fisher- 
ies, as  well  as  those  which  affect  the  relations  of  the 
United  States  towards  her  majesty's  possessions  in 
North  America." 

The  American  secretary  of  state,  Mr.  Fish,  re- 
plied that  President  Grant  fully  appreciated  the 
friendly  spirit,  which  had  prompted  the  proposal, 
but  that  without  the  adjustment  of  a  class  of  cases 
not  alluded  to,  the  action  of  the  proposed  commis- 
sion "would  fail  to  establish  the  permanent  relations 
and  the  sincere,  substantial  and  lasting  friendship 
between  the  two  governments,  which  in  common 


UNITED    STATES      GREAT    BRITAIN.      135 


with  her  majesty's  government,  he  desires  should 
prevail. 

He  thinks  that  the  removal  of  the  differences 
which  arose  during  the  rebellion  in  the  United 
States,  and  which  have  existed  since  then,  growing 
out  of  the  acts  committed  by  the  several  vessels 
which  have  given  rise  to  the  claims  generally  known 
as  the  "Alabama  claims"  will  also  be  essential  to 
the  restoration  of  cordial  and  amicable  relations  be- 
tween the  two  governments." 

If  the  consideration  of  these  claims  were  includ- 
ed within  the  scope  of  the  commission  and  thus 
placed  in  the  way  of  final  and  amicable  settlement, 
he  stated  that  his  government  would  accede  with 
great  pleasure  to  the  proposal  for  a  joint  commission 
and  would  spare  no  efforts  to  secure  at  the  earliest 
practicable  moment,  a  just  and  amicable  arrange- 
ment of  all  the  questions  in  controversy. 

On  the  1st  of  February,  Mr.  Thornton  commu- 
nicated the  .issent  of  the  British  government  to  the 
submission  to  the  consideration  of  the  commission 
of  the  "claims  commonly  known  by  the  name  of  the 
Alabama  claims,"  provided  that  all  other  claims, 
both  of  British  subjects  and  citizens  of  the  United 
States,  arising  out  of  acts  committed  during  the  re- 
cent civil  war  in  this  country,  are  similarly  referred 
to  the  same  commission." 

The  American  secretary  replied  on  the  3rd,  ex- 
pressing the  satisfaction  with  which  president  Grant 
had  received  the  intelligence  of  the  acceptance  of 
his  views  in  reference  to  the  "Alabama  claims,"  but 
that,  while  assentijig  to  the  propriety  of  referring  to 
the  commission  the  claims  included  in  the  proviso, 


;m1 


'•a 


i:  i' 


n 


M\ 


'  u 


I; 


136 


POLITICAL    CONTROVERSIES 


he  suggested  that  the  high  commissioners  should 
only  consider  such  claims  of  that  description  as 
should  "be  presented  by  the  government  of  the  res- 
pective parties  at  an  early  day  to  be  agreed  upon 
by  the  commissioners."  ' 

All  obstacles  having  been  happily  removed  that 
stood  in  the  way  of  concerted  and  harmonious  ac- 
tion, the  distinguished  gentlemen  wh.o  were  to  con- 
stitute the  high  commission,  were  appointed  by  the 
two  governments  without  delay.C) 

On  the  22d  of  Fc"  ry,  the  secretary  of  state 
furnished  the  Americ  c  amissioners  with  a  confi- 
dential memorandum,  which,  he  said,  embodied  a 
reference  to  correspondence  i'''  his  department  and 
to  the  history  of  several  of  die  questions  which 
might  be  discussed  by  the  commission,  viz:  i.  The 
fisheries.  2.  The  navigation  of  the  St.  Lawrence. 
3.  Reciprocal  trade  between  the  United  States  and 
the  Dominion  of  Canada.  4.  Northwest  water 
boundary  and  the  island  of  San  Juan.  5.  The  claims 
of  the  United  States  against  Great  Britain  on  ac- 


(1.)  With  the  consent  of  the  senate,  on  the  9th  of  February,  the  president  ap- 
pointed as  commissioners  on  the  part  of  the  United  States,  Hamilton  Fish,  secretary 
of  state;  Samuel  Nelson,  associate  justice  of  the  United  States  supreme  court, 
Robert  C.  Schenck,  minister  to  England;  ^:  Koclcwood  Hoar,  late  attorney  gener- 
al of  the  United  States,  and  George  H.  Williams,  United  States  senator  from  Ore- 
gon. 

On  the  part  of  Great  Britain,  the  commissioners  appointed  by  the  queen  were 
designated  as  follows:  George  Frederick  Samuel,  earl  de  Gray  and  earl  of  Kipon. 
Viscount  Goderich,  Baron  Grantham,  a  baronet,  a  peer  of  our  united  kingdom. 
President  of  our  most  honorable  privy  council,  knight  of  our  most  noble  order  of  the 
gaiter,  etc.,  etc. ;  our  right  trusty  and  well-beloved  Sir  Edward  Thornton,  knight 
commanderof  our  most  honorable  order  of  the  Bath,  our  envoy  extraordiuary  and 
minister  plenipotentiary  to  our  g  )od  friends,  the  United  States  of  America;  our 
trusty  and  well  beloved  Sir  John  Alexander  Macdonald,  knight  commander  of  our 
most  honorable  order  of  the  Bath,  a  member  of  our  privy  council  for  Canada  and 
ninisterof  justice  and  attorney-general  of  our  Dominion  of  Canada;  and  our  trusty 
and  well  beloved  Montague  Bernard  esquire,  Chichele  Professor  of  International  law 
in  the  university  of  Oxford. 


UNITED    S  TATE  S    -  (I  R  E  A  T     IJ  R  IT  A  I  N.       137 


count  of  acts  committed  by  rebel  cruisers.  6. 
Claims  of  British  subjects  against  the  United  States 
for  losses  and  injuries  arising  oiit  of  acts  committed 
during  the  recent  civil  war  of  the  United  States. 

i  He  added  that  one  point  not  referred  to  in  the 
iremorandum  would  probably  be  brought  to  the 
consideration  of  the  joint  commission,  viz:  "some 
agreement  between  the  two  governments,  defining 
their  respective  rights  and  duties  as  neutrals  in  case 
the  other  government  be  engaged  in  war  with  a 
thir J  power,"  and  that  the  president  hoped  that 
whatever  principles  should  be  established  or  recog- 
nized upon  the  subject  should  be  considered  equally 
applicable  to  the  period  covered  by  the  late  civil 
war  and  the  future. 

The  joint  high  commission  was  duly  organized 
in  Washington  on  the  27th  of  February.  The  Brit- 
ish commissioners  proposed  that  Mr,  Fish  should 
preside,  but  the  United  States  commissioners,  while 
appreciating  the  proposal,  considered  it  unnecessary 
to  appoint  a  president,  and,  on  the  suggestion  of 
Mr.  Fish,  Lord  Tenterden,  secretary  of  the  British 
commission,  and  Mr.  Bancroft  Davis,  assistant  sec- 
retary of  state  and  acting  as  secretary  of  the  United 
States  commission,  were  requested  to  undertake  the 
duties  of  joint  protocolists.       -  * 

It  was  agreed  that  the  discussions  should  be  con- 
fined  to  the  subjects  mentioned  in  the  correspon- 
dence between  the  two  governments  in  January  and 
February,  and,  upon  the  attention  of  the  British 
commissioners  being  called  to  the  fact,  they  de- 
clared that  they  were  aware  that  a  treaty,  to  be 
binding  upon  the  United  States,  must  be  ratified  by 
the  American  senate.  18 


''i'l 

1 


»38 


I'Or.  ITICAL    CONTROVERSIES 


At  the  commencement  of  the  negotiations,  the 
American  commissioners  stated  that  the  history  of 
the  Alabama  and  other  cruisers,  which  had  sailed 
from  British  ports,  showed  extensive  direct  losses  in 
the  capture  and  destruction  of  a  large  number  of 
vessels  with  their  cargoes  and  in  heavy  national  ex- 
penditures in  the  pursuit  of  the  cruisers;  that  it  also 
indicated  indirect  injury  in  the  transfer  of  a  large 
part  of  the  American  commercial  marine  to  the 
British  flag,  and  in  the  prolongation  of  the  war  with 
the  addition  of  a  large  sum  to  its  cost.  It  was  as- 
serted that  Great  Britain,  by  reason  of  failure  in  the 
proper  observance  of  her  duties  as  a  neutral,  had  be- 
come justly  liable  for  the  acts  of  these  cruisers  and 
their  tenders;  that  the  claims  on  account  of  the  de- 
struction of  private  property,  already  presented, 
amounted  to  about  fourteen  millions  of  dollars  with- 
out interest;  that  this  amount  was  liable  to  be  great- 
ly increased  by  claims  not  yet  presented;  that  the 
national  cost  in  the  pursuit  of  the  cruisers  could 
easily  be  ascertained  by  certificates  of  government 
accounting  officers,  but  that  no  estimate  was  made 
of  the  indirect  losses  in  the  hope  of  amicable  settle- 
ment, reserving  the  right  of  indemnification  for  such 
losses  in  the  event  that  such  hope  should  not  be 
realized.  They  also  proposed  that  the  joint  com- 
mission should  agree  upon  a  sum  to  be  paid  to  the 
United  States  in  satisfaction  of  all  claims  and  the 
interest  thereon. 

The  hope  was  also  expressed  "that  the  British 
commissioners  would  be  able  to  place  on  record  an 
expression  of  regret  by  her  majesty's  government 
for  the  depredations  of  the  vessels  whose  acts  are 
now  under  discussion." 


UNITED    STATES      GREAT     BRITAIN.       139 


In  reply,  the  British  commissioners  insisted  that 
Great  Britain  had  performed  all  the  duties  incum- 
bent upon  her  as  a  neutral  power,  and  was  in  no 
way  responsible  for  the  acts  of  the  cruisers  referred 
til*  They  reminded  the  American  commissioners 
that  several  vessels,  suspected  of  being  designed  to 
cruise  against  the  United  States,  including  two  iron 
clads,  had  been  detained  by  the  British  government, 
which,  in  some  instances,  had  gone  beyond  the  re- 
quirements of  international  law,  however  widely 
construed,  as  in  acquiring,  at  great  cost,  the  control 
of  the  Anglo-Chinese  flotilla,  when  it  was  appre- 
hended that  it  might  be  used  against  the  United 
States.  They  also  referred  to  the  fact  that  Great 
Britain,  while  uniformly  disavowing  any  responsi- 
bility for  the  acts  of  the  Alabama  and  the  other 
cruisers,  had  already  manifested  for  the  sake  of  the 
maintenance  of  friendly  relations,  a  willingness  to 
adopt  the  principle  of  arbitration,  if  a  fitting  arbitra- 
tor could  be  found  and  an  agreernent  made  as  to  the 
points  to  which  the  arbitration  should  apply;  that, 
therefore,  abstaining  from  replying  in  detail  to  the 
statement  of  the  American  commissioners,  they 
would,  in  behalf  of  their  government,  repeat  the 
offer  of  arbitration.  *-> 

The  deliberations  of  the  commission  were  pro- 
tracted until  the  8th  day  of  May,  1871,  when  a 
treaty  was  concluded,  subject  to  ratification,  con- 
sisting of  forty-three  articles,  many  of  them  being 
articles  of  detail  prescribing  the  manner  of  carrying 
the  substantial  and  important  articles  into  effect. 

At  an  early  day,  the  British  commissioners  stat- 
ed that  they  were  authorized  to  express  in  a  friend- 


I 


m 


rH 


140 


I'  ()  M  r  r  c  A  r,   c:  o  n  t  u  o  v  k  u  s  r  e  s 


\y  spirit,  the  reg  et  felt  by  her  majesty's  govern- 
ment for  the  escape,  under  whatever  circumstances, 
of  the  Alabama  and  other  vessels  from  British  ports 
and  for  the  depredations  committed  by  those  ves- 
sels." This  avowal  of  regret  was  subsequently  em- 
bodied in  the  first  article  of  the  treaty. 

The  treaty  provided  for  the  settlement  of  the 
Alabama  claims  by  arbitration  and  laid  down  the 
following  three  rules  by  which  the  arbitrators  were 
to  be  governed  in  deciding  upon  the  liability-  of 
Great  Britain,  viz:  "A  neutral  government  is  bound, 
^rst,  to  use  due  diligence  to  prevent  the  fitting  out, 
arming  or  equipping,  within  its  jurisdiction,  of  any 
vessel,  which  it  has  reasonable  ground  to  believe  is 
intended  to  cruise  or  carry  on  war  against  any  pow- 
er with  which  it  is  at  peace,  and  also  to  use  like  dil- 
igence to  prevent  the  departure  from  its  jurisdiction 
of  any  vessel  intended  to  cruise  or  carry  on  war  as 
above,  such  vessel  having  been  specially  adapted,  in 
whole  or  in  part,  within  such  jurisdiction,  to  warlike 
\x'$,t\  secondly y  not  to  permit  or  suffer  either  belliger- 
ent to  make  use  of  its  ports  or  waters  as  the  base  of 
naval  operations  against  the  other,  or  for  the  pur- 
pose of  renewal  or  augmentation  of  military  sup- 
plies, or  arms,  or  the  recruitment  of  men;  thirdly 
to  exercise  due  diligence  in  its  own  ports  and  wat- 
ers, and  as  to  all  persons  within  its  'urisdiction  to 
prevent  any  violation  of  the  foregoing  obligations 
and  duties." 

The  British  commissioners  stated  that  their  gov- 
ernment did  not  recognize  the  above  rules  as  an  ex- 
position of  the  principles  of  international  law  exist- 
ing when  the  Alabama  claims  arose,  but  for  the  pur- 


UNI' IK  I)    SPATES    .GRKAT     BKITAIN.      141 


St- 

Lir- 


pose  of  evincing  its  desire  of  strengthening  the 
friendly  relations  between  the  two  countries  and 
making  satisfactory  provision  for  the  future,  it  was 
agreed  that  the  arbitrators  should  assume,  in  decid- 
ing upon  those  claims,  that  their  government  had 
undertaken  to  act  upon  the  principles  set  forth  in 
those  rules.  '     '         *  • 

It  was  further  stipulated  that  the  contracting 
parties  should  observe  those  rules  between  them- 
selves in  future,  and  that  other  maritime  powers 
should  be  invited  to  accede  to  them. 
■■•  The  treaty  also  contained  provisions  for  the  set- 
tlement of  other  claims  of  the  subjects  or  citizens  of 
the  respective  parties  arising  from  acts  committed 
between  the  13th  of  April,  1861,  and  the  9th  of 
April,  1865,  and  with  regard  to  certain  other  sub- 
jects of  great  importance,  such  as  the  fisheries,  the 
free  navigation  of  the  St.  Lawrence  and  Lake  Mich- 
igan, the  use  of  certain  canals  of  the  respective  par- 
ties, of  the  transit  of  the  merchandise  of  the  citizens 
of  the  one  government  through  the  territory  of  the 
other,  and  the  settlement  of  the  question  of  bound- 
ary upon  the  northv.  est  coast  by  submitting  it  to 
the  decision  of  the  emperor  of  Germany. 

Some  of  the  provisions  were  of  a  permanent  and 
others  of  a  limited  character,  and  some  of  them 
could  not  take  effect  until  laws  were  passed  to  carry 
them  into  operation  by  the  imperial  parliament  of 
,  Great  Britain,  by  the  parliament  of  Canada,  and  by 
the  legislature  of  Prince  Edward's  Island  on  the  one 
hand  and  by  the  congress  of  the  United  States  on 
the  other.  It  was  agreed  that  the  British"  govern- 
ment should  use  its  influence  to  procure  the  concur- 


'M 


142 


POLITICAL    CONTROVERSIES 


rence  of  the  provincial  parliaments  as  to  those  arti- 
cles which  required  their  assent,  which  was  ultimate- 
ly secured,  and  a  declaration  to  this  effect  was 
signed  on  the  7th  of  June,  1873,  by  the  American 
secretary  of  state  and  the  British  minister. 

When  the  treaty  was  first  promulgated,  it  was 
received  in  Canada  with  great  and  almost  universal 
disfavor.  It  was  violently  assailed  as  an  utter  aban- 
donment of  the  fisheries  and  a  surrender  of  the  sov- 
ereignty of  the  river  St.  Lawrence.  The  Canadian 
parliament  seemed  determined  upon  its  instant  and 
indignant  rejection.  At  this  critical  juncture,  the 
home  government  came  forward  with  a  proposition 
to  guaranty  a  railway  loan  of  ;^2, 500,000,  or  about 
twelve  millions  of  dollars  to  be  expended  in  the 
construction  of  provincial  railroads  as  an  equivalent 
for  the  ratification  of  the  treaty.  This  proposition 
was  favorbly  listened  to  and  provincial  hostility  to 
the  treaty  was  subdued. 

On  the  6th  of  May,  when  the  work  of  the  joint 
high  commission  drew  to  a  conclusion  and  only  re- 
quired the  official  signatures.  Lord  de  Grey,  in  be- 
half of  himself  and  his  colleagues,  expressed  their 
very  high  appreciation  of  the  manner  in  which  the 
American  commissioners  had  conducted  the  nego- 
tiations on  their  part  and  who  had  displayed  equally 
sincere  desires  with  themselves  to  bring  about  a  set- 
tlement of  the  questions  in  controversy,  alike  honor- 
able and  just  to  both  countries.  Mr.  Fish,  in  behalf 
of  the  American  commissioners,  responded  that 
they  were  gratefully  sensible  of  the  friendly  words 
of  Lord  de  Grey;  that  from  the  date  of  the  first  con- 
ference they  had  been  impressed  by  the  earnestness 


UNITED    STATKS      GREAT     BRITAIN.      143 

manifested  by  the  British  commissioners  to  reach  a 
settlement  worthy  of  the  two  powers,  upon  the  com- 
plex and  delicate  questions  submitted  to  the  joint 
commission,  and  that  they  could  never  cease  to  ap- 
preciate the  open  and  friendly  manner  in  which  the 
iritish  commissioners  had  met  and  discussed  the 
various  questions  which  had  led  to  a  treaty,  which, 
it  was -hoped,  would  prove  the  foundation  for  a  cor- 
dial, friendly  and  enduring  underRtandinii;  between 
the  two  nations. 

The  treaty  was  promptly  ratified  by  both  gov- 
ernments and  the  tribunal  of  arbitration,  with  regard 
to  the  Alabama  claims,  was  soon  made  up  in  the 
manner  prescribed  by  the  treaty  and  consisted  of 
Charles  Francis  Adams,  designated  by  the  United 
States;  Sir  Alexander  Cockburne,  named  by  her 
Britannic  majesty;  Count  Sclopis,  named  by  the 
K'ing  of  Italy;  Baron  Itayambra,  named  by  the  em- 
peror of  Brazil,  and  ex-president  Staempfli,  named 
by  the  president  of  the  Swiss  confederation.  The 
tribunal  convened  at  Geneva  on  the  15th  day  of 
December,  1871. 

The  treaty  required  that  each  party  should  se- 
lect an  agent  to  represent  it  generally  in  all  matters 
connected  with  the  commission,  and  John  C.  Ban- 
croft Davis  was  designated  on  the  part  of  the  United 
States  and  Lord  Tenterden,  on  the  part  of  Great 
Britain.  The  American  agent  at  an  early  day  pre- 
sented the  case  as  made  up  in  behalf  of  his  govern- 
ment, and  was  followed  by  the  immediate  presenta- 
tion of  the  British  case  by  Lord  Tenterden.  Each 
party  had  previously  furnished  the  opposite  side  with 
copies  of  its  case.     That  presented  by  the  American 


m 


144 


POLITICAL     C  O  N  T  R  O  V  E  R  S  I  K  S 


agent  included  a  claim  for  "indirect  damages,"  which 
soon  became  the  subject  of  severe  criticism  in  Great 
Britain,  and  at  one  time  threatened  to  bring  the 
labors  of  the  tribunal  to  a  sudden  close.  In  a  com- 
munication addressed  to  the  American  secretary  of 
state  on  the  2ist  of  September,  1872,  after  the  final 
award  of  the  tribunal,  Mr.  Davis  refers  to  several 
distinguished  gentlemen,  whose  advice  and  criticism 
he  sought  in  preparing  the  case,  and  after  obtaining 
which,  he  adds,  that  the  final  chapter  was  written; 
that  this  contained  a  formal  statement  of  the  claims 
submitted  to  adjudication  under  the  treaty;  that 
among  them,  were  those  which  have  since  become 
known  as  "the  indirect  claims,"  but  that  to  prevent 
misapprehension,  it  should  be  said  that  this  chapter 
was  not  sent  out  for  criticism  as  the  others  had 
been. 

In  Great  Britain,  these  indirect  claims  were  re- 
ceived with  a  general  outburst  of  indignation,  and 
the  British  press  teemed  with  charges  of  "bad  faith," 
of  "sharp  practice,"  of  perversion  of  the  national 
treaty  and  "extravagant  demands." 

On  the  3rd  of  February,  the  ministry  announced 
officially  that  they  had  not  anticipated  their  presen- 
tation, and  on  the  3rd  of  May,  Mr.  Gladstone  de- 
clared in  the  house  of  commons,  that  the  govern- 
ment had  "arrived  at  the  conclusion  that  those  indi- 
rect claims  were  not  within  the  scope  of  the  arbitra- 
tion to  which  they  had  agreed,  and  therefore  it 
would  not  be  possible  to  be  parties  to  their  submis- 
sion to  the  arbitration  at  Geneva." 

After  an  adjournment,  the  tribunal  having  re- 
assembled in  June,  the  British  agent,  while  anxious 


UNITED    STATES  — GRK  AT     »  KIT  A  IN,      145 


to  save  the  treaty,  asked  for  an  adjournment  of  sev- 
eral months  in  order  to  have  the  question  of  indi- 
rect damages  settled  by  the  negotiations  then  pend- 
ing between  the  two  governments.  The  American 
agent,  instead  of  assenting  to  this,  asked  for  an  ad- 
journment of  two  days  to  consider  the  subject. 
When  the  tribunal  re-convened,  the  president, 
Count  Sclopis  announced  that  the  tribunal  had 
come  to  the  conclusion  that  the  claims  known  as 
the  indirect  claims,  did  not  constitute,  on  principles 
of  international  law  applicable  to  such  cases,  good 
and  sufficient  foundation  for  an  award  of  compensa- 
tion or  computation  of  damages  between  nations. 

This  opinion  was  accepted  by  both  parties,  Mr. 
Davis  stating  that  he  was  authorized  to  do  so  by 
the  president  of  the  United  States,  and  all  objec- 
tions being  thus  obviated,  the  board  of  arbitrators 
proceeded  to  the  consideration  of  the  questions  of 
which  they  had  conceded  jurisdiction.  After  a  pa- 
tient and  thorough  investigation,  the  tribunal  an- 
nounced their  decision  on  the  14th  of  September, 
1872,  and  awarded  to  the  United  States,  fifteen  mil- 
lions five  hundred  thousand  dollars  in  gold  to  be 
paid  by  Great  Britain  in  satisfaction  of  all  the  claims 
referred  to  the  consideration  of  the  arbitrators.  This 
decision  was  concurred  in  by  four  out  of  five  arbitra- 
tors; but  Sir  Alexander  Cockburn,  while  assenting 
to  some  of  the  conclusions  of  his  colleagues,  gave  a 
long,  dissenting  opinion. 

All  of  the  arbitrators,  however,  agreed  that  Great 
Britain  had  failed  in  the  case  of  the  Alabama,  by 
omission  to  fulfill  the  duties  prescribed  in  the  first 
and  third  rules  established  by  the  sixth  article  of  the 
treaty  under  which  the  tribunal  acted.  ig 


146 


POLITICAL    CONTROVERSIES 


By  a  majority  of  four  to  one,  they  decided  that 
with  regard  to  the  cruiser  Florida,  Great  Britain  had 
failed  by  omission,  to  fulfill  the  duties  required  by 
the  first,  second  and  third  rules  of  the  sixth  article 
of  the  treaty.  As  to  the  Shenandoah,  they  decided 
by  the  voices  of  three  to  two,  that  Great  Britain,  by 
omission, had  failed  to  fulfill  the  duties  prescribed  by 
the  second  and  third  rules,  from  and  after  that 
cruiser  entered  Hobson's  Bay,  and  was  responsible 
for  all  acts  committed  bv  that  vessel  after  her  de- 
parture  from  Melbourne  on  the  i8th  day  of  Feb- 
ruary, 1865.  The  culpability  applied  to  those  ves- 
sels, was  also  extended  to  the  acts  of  the  tenders. 
With  regard  to  several  other  vessels,  the  tribunal 
decided  that  Great  Britain  was  not  in  fault. 

Great  Britain  acquiesed  in  the  decision  of  the 
tribunal,  and  with  honorable  and  unhesitating 
promptitude,  paid  to  the  United  States  the  amount 
of  the  award  which  was  fixed  by  the  arbitrators  in 
reference  to  the  losses  of  individuals  and  without 
regard  to  indirect  and  incalculable  national  losses. 
The  latter  were,  doubtless,  waived,  if  not  by  the 
preliminary  action  of  the  American  joint  commis- 
sioners and  the  subsequent  treaty,  at  least  by  the 
acceptance  by  the  American  government  of  the 
opinion  of  the  tribunal  upon  this  branch  of  the  pre- 
sented case. 

Under  the  provisions  of  the  treaty  for  settling  the 
claims  of  citizens  of  either  power  against  the  other, 
arising  out  of  acts  committed  against  their  persons 
or  property  between  April  13,  1861,  and  April  9, 
1865,  a  commission  was  duly  organized  at  Washing- 
ton, and,  on  the  25th  day  of  September,  made  its 


UNITED    STATES-GREAT    BRITAIN. 


H7 


final  decision,  awarding  to  the  British  government, 
one  million  nine  hundred  and  twenty-nine  thousand 
eight  hundred  and  nineteen  dollars,  payable  within 
twelve  months;  dismissed  or  disallowed  claims  pre- 
sented by  that  government  to  a  large  amount,  and 
allowed  no  claims  presented  by  American  citizens 
against  Great  Britain. 


•X- 


■» 


The  United  States,  previous  to  1812,  beheld 
their  merchant  marine  and  their  commerce  des- 
troyed, and  American  seamen  ruthlessly  impressed 
by  British  vessels,  but  complaints  upon  the  subject 
were  unheeded  or  brought  no  redress.  Great 
Britain  persisted  in  her  course  and  claimed  that  she 
w.as,  justified  in  doing  so  by  the  imperious  necessity, 
under  which  she  was  placed  by  European  war. 
During  the  late  American  civil  i  war,  the  United 
States  again  witnessed  their  merchant  marine, 
which  had  become  flourishing  in  a  long  interval  of 
tranquillity,  driven  from  the  ocean,  and  their  com- 
merce compelled  to  .«eek  the  protection  of  foreign 
flags,  by  cruisers  fitted  out  in  British  ports,  manned 
by  British  sailors,  but  sailing  under  the  Confeder- 
ate flag  a;id  und.er  Confederate  commanders.  The 
direct  damage  which  these  cruisers  inflicted  upon 
individuals,  was  liquidrited  under  the  Geneva  award, 
but  the  indirect  losses  which  they  caused,  are  not 
subject  to  exact  computation,  but  they  were  enor- 
mous and  are  irretrievable.  The  culpability  of 
Great  Britain  for  them,  under  the  law  of  nations,  as 
well  as  her  conduct  during  the  early  period  of  the 
republic,  has,  however,  now  passed  from  the  discus- 
sions of  diplomacy  to  the  criticism  and  judgment  of 
publicists  and  of  an  enlightened  public  opinion. 


I4S 


POLITICAL    CONTROVERSIES 


Neither  has  the  American  government,  at  differ- 
ent periods,  escaped  the  grave  responsibility  of 
maintaining  and  enforcing  the  duties  of  neutrality. 
In  the  early  days  of  the  republic,  the  convulsions  of 
Europe  and  the  wars  waged  so  long,  and  at  last  so 
successfully  by  Great  Britain  against  France,  tried 
the  patience  and  the  fortitude  of  the  American  peo- 
ple in  their  strict  adherence  to  inter-national  law. 
Coming  down  to  a  later  period,  these  were  again 
subjected  to  a  severe  test. 

In  1837-38,  the  Canadian  provinces  were  greatly 
excited  and  disturbed  by  an  insurrection,  which 
aimed  at  independence.  The  movement  found  sym- 
pathizers and  abettors  on  the  American  side  of  the 
frontier,  who  secretlv  combined  for  hostile  incur- 
sions  and  to  furnish  material  aid,  in  violation  of  the 
laws  of  the  United  States. 

A  person  calling  himself  Colonel  VanRensselaer, 
a  dismissed  cadet  from  West  Point,  organized  a 
body  of  Americans  and  .seized  Navy  Island,  belonging 
to  Great  Britain,  opposite  to  Schlosser,  an  American 
town,  and  about  a  mile  and  a  quarter  above  Niagara 
Falls.  The  revolt  in  Canada  was  speedily  sup- 
pressed by  the  Canadian  militia,  with  the  excep- 
tion of  the  force  under  Van  Rensselaer,  which,  con- 
fined to  the  island,  awaited  events.  A  small  steam- 
er, called  the  Caroline,  was  procured  and  made  fast 
to  the  wharf  at  Schlosser  for  the  night  of  the  29th 
of  December,  1837,  with  the  view  of  being  u.sed  as  a 
ferry-boat  between  that  place  and  Navy  Island. 
Before  morning,  a  detachment  from  the  Canadian 
side,  under  one  McLeod,  seized  the  steamer,  killed 
an  American  who  was  on  board,  and  sent  her  adrift 


UNITED    STATES- -ORE  AT    BRITAIN.      149 


i  1N 


over  the  falls.  This  act  kindled  the  excitement 
into  a  fiercer  blaze,  and  there  was  a  general  cry  for 
war  along  the  American  frontier.  The  American 
executive  denounced  the  seizure  of  the  steamer  as 
an  outrage,  and  to  prevent  such  acts  in  the  future 
and  to  enforce  the  laws,  he  provided  for  calling  out 
a  portion  of  the  militia,  to  be  posted  on  the  frontier. 
He  also  strongly  condemned  any  interference  with 
Canadian  afifi  Ts,and  warned  those,  who  designed  to 
do  so,  to  des'st,  as  under  no  circumstances  would 
the  United  States  interfere  in  their  behalf,  and  that 
they  would  be  left  to  be  dealt  with  according  to  the 
justice  and  policj^  of  that  government,  whose  do- 
minions they  invaded  without  the  shadow  of  justifi- 
cation or  excuse.  General  Scott  was  immediately 
dispatched  to  the  frontier  for  the  purpose  of  prevent- 
ing all  hostile  incursions  and  to  enforce  the  neutral 
duties  of  the  United  States.  The  judicious  meas- 
ures taken  by  his  government,  combined  with  his 
own  good  judgment  and  energy,  kept  in  check  the 
angry  feelings  and  the  sympathetic  impulses,  which 
had  grown  out  of  the  insurrection.      ♦  > 

In  his  message  in  December,  1838,  President 
Van  Burcn  alluded  to  the  consequences  of  criminal 
assaults,  by  misguided  or  deluded  persons,  upon  the 
peace  and  order  of  a  neighboring  country,  to  the 
amicable  disposition  of  the  United  States  towards 
Great  Britain-,  and  to  the  duty  of  maintaining  a 
strict  neutrality  if  an  insurrection  existed  in  Canada. 
He  referred  to  the  high  obligation,  which  rested 
upon  the  government,  to  redress  all  attempts  on  the 
part  of  its  citizens  to  disturb  the  peace  of  a  country, 
where  order  prevails  or  has  been  re-established,  and 


■m 


P  ( )  L  I  T  I C  A  L    C  O  N  T  R  O  V  E  R  S  I  K  S 


to  the  confidence  with  which  he  relied  upon  the 
American  people  to  put  down  with  prumptitude 
and  decison,  all  such  attempts.  He  declared  that 
in  the.  meantime,  the  existing  laws  had  been  and 
would  be  faithfully  executed.    > 

In  a  subsequent  message,  after  adverting  to  the 
restoration  of  tranquillity,  the  president  remarks: 
"On  a  review  of  the  occurrences  on  both  sides  of 
the  line,  it  is  satisfactory  to  reflect,  that  in  almost 
every  complaint  against  our  country,  the  offense 
may  be  traced  to  emigrants  from  the  provinces  who 
have  sought  refuge  here.  In  the  few  instances  in 
which  they  were  aided  by  the  citizens  of  the  United 
States,  the  acts  of  these  misguided  men  were  not 
only  in  direct  contravention  of  the  laws  and  well 
known  wishes  of  their  own  government,  but  met 
with  the  decided  disapprobation  of  the  people  of  the 
United  States." 

The  mutual  complaints,  springing  out  of  these 
frontier  disturbances,  became  the  subjects  of  diplo- 
matic correspondence. 

McLeod,  who  was  engaged  in  the  seizure  of  the 
Caroline,  was  subsequently  arrested  in  the  state  of 
New  York  on  the  chage  of  complicity  in  murder  at 
the  time  of  the  seizure,  was  released  on  bail,  but 
was  afterward  re-committed  to  prison.  His  release 
was  demanded  by  the  British  government,  and  the 
American  secretary  of  state  and  the  governor  of 
New  York  became  involved  in  a  vexatious  interna 
tional  controversy.  McLeod,  however,  was  tried 
and  acquitted,  and  in  the  negotiations  preceding  the 
Washington  treaty  of  1842,  an  apology  was  received 
by  the  American  government  for  the  invasion  of 
American  soil  and  consequent  acts  at  Schlosser. 


UNTIED    STATES— GREAT     BRITAIN.      151 


Subsequent  movements,  at  different  times,  oc- 
curred in  the  United  States,  which  had  a  strong 
tendency  to  interrupt  the  peaceful  relations  of  the 
two  countries.  A  secret  society,  known  as  the  Fe- 
nian, originating  in  Ireland,  extended  its  operations 
to  this  country  with  a  view,  doubtless,  to  ulterior 
effects  in  Ireland.  Military  invasions  of  Canada 
were  planned  under  its  auspices  in  contravention  of 
international  law,  the  local  laws  of  the  United 
States  and  treaty  stipulations.  Whenever  the  plans 
of  invasion  rose  to  the  surface  and  became  exposed, 
they  were  speedily  suppressed  by  the  government. 
By  secrecy  and  alacrity,  they  sometimes  attained 
proportions,  which,  by  pecuniary  exactions  and 
otherwise,  proved  in  the  end  greatly  disastrous  to 
those  engaged  in  them.  As  to  the  character  of 
those  movements,  in  reply  to  remarks  of  the  British 
minister  in  1867,  the  American  secretary  of  state 
declared,  "that  they  neither  began  or  ended  in  the 
United  States;  that  the  movers  were  natives  of 
Great  Britain,  although  some  of  them  had  been  nat- 
uralized as  American  citizens;  that  their  quarrel 
with  Great  Britain  was  a  British  one  and  their  aim 
not  American,  but  British  revolution;  that  in  seek- 
ing to  make  the  territory  of  the  United  States  the 
basis  of  military  and  naval  operations  for  organizing 
a  republic  in  Ireland,  they  allege  that  they  only  fol- 
low the  example  of  Bnti^  subjects  in  regard  to  the 
American  civil  war,"  but  he  asserted  "that  the  pro- 
ceedings of  the  two  governments  were  not  anal- 
ogous, the  United  States  having  never  acknowl- 
edged the  Irish  republic  as  b'illigerent  and  having 
disarmed  the  Fenian  forces  within  its  jurisdiction." 


ill 


mi 


I 

m 


iSa 


POLITICAL    CONTROVERSIES 


An  attempt  being  made  in  1871,  by  the  British 
commissioners  to  procure  action  on  claims  for  in- 
juries caused  by  the  Fenian  raids  to  the  people  of 
Canada,  it  was  resisted  by  the  American  commis- 
sioners on  the  ground  that  action  upon  such  claims 
was  not  contemplated  in  the  formation  of  the  joint 
high  commission,  and  that  they  were  not  favorably 
inclined  to  them.  Under  the  circumstances,  the 
British  commissioners  declined  to  further  urge  the 
settlement  of  the  claims  by  the  treaty,  and  stated 
that  they  had  less  difficulty  in  taking  this  course,  as 
a  portion  of  those  claims  were  of  a  constructive  and 
inferential  character. 


i 


?i 


CHAPTER   VI. 


THE  AFRICAN  SLAVE  TRADE. 


The  English  African  slave  trade,  which  origin- 
ated in  the  time  of  Queen  Elizabeth,  received  new 
impulse  and  encouragement  at  the  general  pacifica- 
tion of  Europe  by  the  treaty  of  Utrecht  in  1713. 
Great  Britain  then  obtained,  for  a  certain  number  of 
years,  the  contract  or  privilege  of  supplying  the 
Spanish  colonies  with  negroes.  This  privilege  was 
soon  after  vested  exclusively  in  the  famous  South 
Sea  company,  which  derived  from  it  and  other  priv- 
ileges, such  enormous  profits  as  stimulated  the  com- 
pany to  embark  in  those  vast  and  dishonest  specu- 
lations in  the  public  stocks,  which  eventually  over- 
whelmed it  with  complete  and  disastrous  ruin.  As 
far  as  related  to  the  introduction  of  slaves  into  the 
British  colonics,  the  trade  built  up  and  enlarged  an 
institution,  which  has  been  a  prolific  source  of  indi- 
vidual and  national  calamities. 

The  slave  policy  of  Great  Britain  met  with 
strong  opposition  o  .  the  part  of  the  colonists,  but 
their  petitions  and  remonstrances  against  it,  were 
disregarded  by  the  British  crown.  At  the  com- 
mencement of  their  national  existence,  the  Ameri- 
cans found  themselves  confronted  by  this  extensive 
and  growing  evil,  and,  had  it  not  been  for  the  obsti- 
nacy of  two  states.  South  Carolina  and  Georgia, 
who  refused  to  become  parties  to  the  Union,  unless 
the  trade  was  tolerated  until  1808,  its  prohibition 
would,  doubtless,  have  been  coeval  with  the  adop- 
tion of  the  national  constitution.  As  it  was.  Con- 
gress, at  an  early  date,  passed  severe  laws  against 
20 


m 


V  O  L  IT  IC  A  I.    CONTROVERSIES 


Americans  being  engaged  in  the  foreign  slave  trade, 
and  in  the  administration  of  Jefferson,  who  was  a 
slave  holder,  and  upon  his  recommendation  in  1806, 
it  was  prohibited  from  the  first  of  January,  1808,  at 
the  expiration  of  the  constitutional  restriction. 

By  the  treaty  of  Ghent,  in  18 14,  both  nations 
evinced  their  hostility  to  the  trade,  declared  it  irrec- 
oncilable  with  the  principles  of  humanity  and  jus- 
tice, and  promised  to  use  their  best  endeavors  for 
its  suppression.  In  accordance  with  the  spirit  thus 
announced,  successive  acts  of  congress  were  passed, 
and  on  the  15th  of  May,  1820,  citi2ens  of  the  United 
States  engaged  in  the  African  slave  trade,  were  de- 
clared guilty  of  the  crime  of  piracy,  and  subjected 
to  the  penalty  of  death.  To  enforce  these  laws,  the 
policy  was  commenced  of  employing  American 
cruisers  upon  the  African  coast. 

In  England  the  lethargy,  which  had  apparently 
deadened  the  moral  sensibilities  of  the  British  peo- 
ple, began  to  yield  to  the  awakening  touch  and  the 
vigorous  and  unceasing  blows  of  Clarkson,  Wilber- 
force  and  their  associates,  and  finally  gave  way  to  a 
resistless  and  universal  feeling  of  national  philan- 
thropy. As  a  consequence,  after  a  protracted  strug- 
gle of  over  twenty  years,  commenced  in  1785,  by 
the  indefatigable  Thomas  Clarkson,  an  act  of  par- 
liament was  passed  in  February,  1807,  which  pro- 
hibited the  clearing  of  slave  vessels  from  any  part 
of  the  British  dominions  after  the  first  of  May  of 
that  year  and  the  importation  of  slaves  into  any  of 
the  British  colonies  after  the  first  of  March,  1808. 
The  slave  trade  was  made  punishable  by  a  penalty 
in  money;   afterward,  in  18 11,  it  was  made  felony, 


UNITKD    STATES  -Uk  EAT     BRITAIN.       155 


punishable  by  a  transportation  for  fourteen  years,  or 
imprisonment  with  hard  labor;  in  1824,  it  was  made 
piracy,  punishable  by  death,  which  was  changed  in 
1837,  to  transportation  for  life,  and  on  the  28th  of 
August,  1833,  a  bill,  which  had  passed  parliament, 
received  the  royal  assent,  by  which  slavery  was  to 
become  extinct  on  the  ist  of  August,  1834,  in  the 
British  colonies  and  ;^20,ocx5,0(X)  was  granted  to  in- 
demnify those  who  should  suffer  by  its  extinction. 

Lord  Castlereagh,  the  English  principal  secre- 
tary of  state  for  foreign  affairs,  at  an  early  day,  en- 
tered with  zeal  and  energy  into  negotiations  with 
the  European  powers  for  the  total  suppression  of 
the  African  slave  trade.  They  were  induced  to  de- 
nounce it  as  repugnant  to  the  principles  of  human- 
ity and  justice,  and  to  pass  laws  for  its  immediate 
or  early  abolition,  with  the  exception  of  Portugal, 
which  only  prohibited  it  north  of  the  equator.  In 
July,  1819,  both  houses  of  Parliament  presented  ad- 
dresses to  the  Prince  Regent  expressing  their  grati- 
fication for  his  zealous  and  persevering  efforts  for  its 
total  annihilation,  and  in  which  they  said:  "The 
United  States  of  America  were  honorably  distin- 
guished  as  the  first  which  pronounced  condemnation 
of  this  guilty  traffic,  and  that  they  have  since  suc- 
cessively passed  various  laws  for  carrying  their  pro- 
hibition into  effect,  that  the  consciousness  that  the 
government  of  this  country  was  originally  instru- 
mental in  leading  the  Americans  into  this  criminal 
course,  must  naturally  prompt  us  to  call  upon  them 
the  more  importunately  to  join  us  in  endeavoring  to 
put  an  end  to  the  evils  of  which  it  is  productive." 

Interviews  took  place  early  in  1818,  and  subse- 


POLITICAL    CONTROVERSIES 


quently  at  London,  between  the  ministers  of  the 
United  States  and  Great  Britain,  in  which  both  con- 
curred in  reprobating  the  traffic,  and  treaties,  made 
by  Great  Britain  with  Spain,  Portugal  and  the 
Netherlands  for  its  suppression,  were  furnished  the 
American  minister  with  the  request  that  they 
should  be  submitted  to  the  serious  consideration  of 
the  president  of  the  United  States  with  an  intimation 
'of  the  strong  wish  of  the  British  government  that 
the  exertions  of  the  two  states  may  be  combined 
upon  a  somewhat  similar  principle  in  order  to  put 
down  this  great  moral  disobedience,  wherever  it 
may  be  committed,  to  the  laws  of  both  countries." 

Upon  examination,  the  president  came  to  the 
decided  conclusion  that  the  treaties  contained  pro- 
visions which  were  adverse  to  the  constitutional 
powers  of  the  general  government  of  the  United 
States  and  to  the  susceptibilities  of  the  American 
people.  The  treaty  with  the  Netherlands  was  more 
especially  objectionable,  as  it  conceded  the  right  to 
search  a  vessel  even  if  sailing  under  convoy  of  ships 
of  war. 

They  contained  provisions  for  a  mixed  commis- 
sion in  the  colonial  possessions  of  the  contracting 
parties  for  the  trial  of  those  engaged  in  the  trade, 
but  the  United  States  had  no  colonies  within  which 
such  a  commission  could  act.  Besides,  under  the 
constitution,  the  criminal  jurisdiction  of  the  United 
States  could  not  be  exercised  in  fo  eign  territory, 
and  every  American  citizen  was  entitled  to  a  pre- 
liminary examination  by  a  grand  jury  and  a  subse- 
quent trial  in  open  court,  by  a  jury  of  his  peers.  A 
certain    disposition    was    directed  of  the  captured 


UNTIED    STATES-  GREAT     UK  I  TAIN.      157 


slaves,  which  could  not  be  carried  into  effect  accord- 
ing to  the  nnunicipal  laws  of  the  several  States. 

The  American  minister  in  London  was  instruct- 
ed, in  communicating  this  conclusion  of  his  govern- 
ment, to  express  the  regrets  of  the  president,  that 
the  stipulations  of  the  treaties  were  of  a  character 
to  preclude  their  acceptance  by  the  United  States. 
As  to  the  constitutional  objection,  it  was  suggested 
that  its  force  would  be  readily  understood  by  the 
British  cabinet,  as  in  principle,  it  was  the  same  as 
prevented  Great  Britain  from  becoming,,  formally,  a 
party  to  the  holy  alliance. 

In  a  communication  to  Lord  Castlereagh,  in 
December,  1818,  the  American  minister  expressed 
the  strongest  solicitude  of  his  government  for  the 
universal  extirpation  of  the  traffic,  referred  to  the 
general  prohibitory  law  of  1807,  and  to  that  of  the 
preceding  April  with  its  severe  penalties  and  other 
precautions  as  evidence  of  the  zeal  and  earnestness 
of  his  government,  and  declared  that,  within  consti- 
tutional limits,  it  would  always  be  ready  to  super- 
add any  others,  that  experience  should  prove  neces- 
sary for  the  accomplishment  of  the  end  in  view. 

In  its  anxiety  for  effective  co-operation,  the 
British  government  concluded  to  transfer  negotia- 
tion upon  the  subject  to  Washington,  and  entrusted 
th"  matter  to  the  honorable  Stratford  Canning,  the 
newly  appointed  minister  to  the  United  States.  In 
December,  1820,  Mr.  Canning  addressed  a  note  to 
Mr.  J.  Q.  Adams,  the  American  secretary  of  state, 
in  which  hi  adverted  to  the  prior  negotiations;  to 
the  anxiety  of  Great  Britain  for  a  concert  of  meas- 
ures with  the  United   States;    and  added  that  the 


I 


11 


«58 


POLITICAL    CONTROVERSIES 


n 


English  government  was  too  sincere  in  the  pursuit 
of  the  common  object  to  press  its  own  proposals, 
however  satisfactory  in  themselves,  to  the  exclusion 
of  suggestions  equally  conducive  to  success  and 
more  in  harmony  with  the  public  opinion  of  other 
nations.  ' 

Mr.  Adams  replied  that  the  president,  while  re- 
gretting that  the  proposed  measures  of  co-operation 
were  such  as  precluded  the  United  States  from  ac- 
cepting them,  had  no  disposition  to  reject  or  dis- 
countenance the  general  proposition  of  concerted 
co-operation.  He  stated  that  armed  cruisers  had 
been  kept  by  the  United  States  on  the  African  coast 
for  the  purpose  of  suppressing  the  odious  slave  trade 
and  that  it  was  intended  to  continue  them  there 
without  interruption;  that  British  cruisers  were  on 
the  same  coast  charged  with  the  same  duty,  and 
that  the  president  had  therefore  directed  him  to 
propose  that  joint  instructions  should  be  concerted, 
with  a  view  to  mutual  assistance,  and  given  to  the 
commanders  respectively  assigned  to  service  on  that 
coast;  that  they  should  be  ordered  ,/henever  the 
occasion  rendered  it  convenient,  to  cruise  in  com- 
pany; to  communicate  all  information  obtained  by 
the  one  that  would  be  useful  to  the  execution  of  the 
duties  of  the  other;  and  to  render  to  each  other 
every  assistance  compatible  with  the  performance 
of  their  own  service  and  adapted  to  the  attainment 
of  the  common  object. 

In  1 82 1  and  1822,  two  committees  of  the  house 
of  representatives  in  the  American  congress  made 
reports  favorable  to  a  stipulated  and  modified  right 
of  search  for  the  more  effectual  suppression  of  the 


UNITED    STATES    -GREAT     BRITAIN. 


»59 


slave  trade  and  each  ending  with  a  resolution  re- 
questing the  president  to  enter  into  such  arrange- 
ments as  he  thought  suitable  and  proper  with  one 
or  mor '  of  the  maritime  powers  of  Europe  for  its  ef- 
fectual rbolition.  No  decisive  vote  was  had  upon 
these  resolutions,  but  near  the  close  of  the  next  ses- 
sion, in  1823,  the  house  of  representatives  indicated 
its  approval  of  the  views  of  the  president  already 
expressed  upon  the  right  of  search  and  almost  unan- 
imously, by  a  vote  of  131  to  9,  requested  him  "to 
enter  upon  and  prosecute  from  time  to  time  such 
negotiations  with  the  several  maritime  powers  of 
Europe  and  America  as  he  may  deem  expedient  for 
the  effectual  abolition  of  the  African  slave  trade, 
and  its  ultimate  denunciation  as  piracy  under  the 
laws  of  nations,  by  the  consent  of  the  civilized 
world."      -  •■  ■■■■ 

This  action  of  congress  was  largely  due  to  the 
indefatigable  labors  and  the  indomitable  energy  of 
Charles  Fenton  Mercer  of  Virginia,  a  leader,  at  that 
time,  of  one  of  the  parties  in  the  house  of  represen- 
tatives, and  who  persisted,  session  after  session,  in 
pressing  the  measure,  until  his  efforts  were  crowned 
with  success.  Mr.  J.  Q.  Adams,  then  secretary  of 
state,  subsequently  said,  on  the  14th  of  April,  1842, 
of  the  congressional  decision:  "It  was  utterly 
against  my  judgment  and  wishes,  but  I  was  obliged 
to  submit,  and  I  prepared  the  requisite  dispatches 
to  Mr.  Rush,  then  our  minister  to  the  court  of  Lon- 
don. (1) 

The  American  secretary  wrote  to  Mr.  Rush,  on 
the  24th  of  June,  1823,  and  informed  him  of  the  ac- 

(1)    Niks' Reg.,  Vol.  62,  Page  160. 


m 


i6o 


POLITICAL    C  O  N  i-  R  O  V  K  U  S  I  E  S 


' 


tion  of  congress  and  of  Mr.  Canning's  solicitation 
for  a  renewal  of  negotiation  upon  the  basis  of  a 
qualified  right  of  search  as  the  preferable  measure 
for  the  accomplishment  of  the  end  in  view,  but  ac- 
companied, however,  with  the  declaration  that  his 
government  would  examine  with  respect  and  can- 
dor, some  other  scheme  of  concert  that  should  be 
brought  forward  as  a  substitute  for  its  own. 

As  such  substitute,  Mr.  Adams  remitted  the 
draft  of  a  convention,  which  Mr.  Rush  was  author- 
ized to  propose,  if  the  British  government  should 
agree  to  treat  upon  the  basis  of  a  legislative  prohi- 
bition of  the  slave  trade  by  both  parties  under  the 
penalties  of  piracy.  In  the  event  of  refusal,  he  was 
instructed  not  to  communicate  the  project  of  a  con- 
vention, the  objects  of  which  Mr.  Adams  declared 
v/ere  two  fold — to  carry  into  effect  the  resolution  of 
the  house  of  representatives,  and  also  to  meet  fully 
and  explicitly  the  urgent  invitation  of  the  British 
government  to  offer  for  consideration  a  substitute 
for  their  rejected  ^proposal — "The  substitute,"  said 
Mr.  Adams,  "by  declaring  the  crime  piracy,  carries 
with  it  the  right  of  search  for  the  pirates  existing  in 
the  very  nature  of  the  crime;  but  the  concession 
of  the  right  of  search,  distinct  from  the  denomina- 
tion of  the  crime,  our  objections  remain  in  full 
force." 

The  negotiation  thus  transferred  to  I^ondon,  was 
entered  upon  by  the  British  government  with  an 
evident  disposition  to  bring  it  to  a  speedy  and  satis- 
factory conclusion.  The  British  plenipotentiaries 
received  the  American  project,  giving  assurances 
that  it  should   receive   a   candid   examination   and 


UNITED    STATES  -GREAT    BRITAIN.        i6i 


that  they  should  consider  themselves  fortunate  .if 
they  could  reconcile  its  acceptance  with  the  convic- 
tions which  had  hitherto  governed  their  government 
in  its  action  upon  the  subject.  :- 

Mr.  Rush  unresevedly  informed  them  that  he 
could  agree  to  no  treaty  except  upon  the  basis,  i. 
That  Great  Britain  should,  by  act  of  parliament,  de- 
clare the  slave  trade  piracy.  2d.  That  captured 
vessels  should  be  tried  by  tribunals  of  the  country 
to  which  they  belonged.  3d.  That  no  individual 
belonging  to  the  crew  was  ever  to  be  taken  out  of 
the  accused  vessel.  4th.  That  the  capturing  officer 
should  be  laid  under  the  most  effective  responsibil- 
ity. 5th.  That  no  merchant  vessel,  under  the  pro- 
tection, or  in  the  presence  of  a  ship  of  war  of  her 
own  nation,  should  ever  be  visited  by  a  ship  of  war 
of  the  other  nation.  . 

Upon  the  basis  thus  presented,  the  British  nego- 
tiators entered  at  once  into  a  consideration  of  the 
American  project,  and  such  was  the  earnest  and 
amicable  spirit  that  animated  both  sides  to  effect 
the  suppression  of  the  traffic,  that  after  some  mutual 
explanations  and  modificatioiis  in  details,  a  conven- 
tion was  signed  at  London  on  the  13th  of  March, 
1824,  by  Mr.  Rush  on  the  part  of  the  United  States 
and  Messrs.  Huskisson  and  Stratford  Canning  on 
the  part  of  Great  Britain.  Mr.  Rush  hastened  to 
forward  it  to  the  President,  accompanied  by  a  dis- 
patch, dated  on  the  15th,  giving  a  history  of  the  ne- 
gotiation, so  that  if  approved  by  the  president,  he 
should  have  the  opportunity  of  submitting  it  to  the 
senate  before  the  adjournment  of  congress.- 

At  the  outset,  the  British  negotiators  declared 


■4 
,i 


21 


1^ 


POI-ITICAL    CONTROVERSIES 


that  the  home  statutes  and  prohibitions  of  Great 
Britain  were  adequate  for  the  suppression  of  the 
traffic  by  British  subjects,  but  gave  their  unhesitat- 
ing assent  to  make  it  piracy  by  British  laws,  if  in 
other  respects  the  two  nations  could  be  brought 
into  accord.  The  stipulations  for  this  purpose  being 
agreed  upon,  a  bill  passed  both  houses  of  Parliament, 
the  House  of  Lords  unanimously,  declaring  the 
African  slave  trade  piracy,  when  engaged  in  by 
British  subjects,  and  on  the  31st  of  March,  1824,  the 
bill  received  the  royal  assent.       r.  .    ; 

A  copy  of  the  act  was  immediately  forwarded  to 
the  president  by  a  vessel  specially  employed  for  the 
purpose.  Such  was  the  promptitude  and  earnest- 
ness of  the  British  government. 

On  the  30th  of  April,  1824,  President  Monroe 
laid  the  treaty  before  the  senate  for  ratification. 
The  senate,  upon  consideration,  proposed  several 
amendments,  one  of  which  was  to  strike  out  the 
word  America  in  the  first  article  and  which  was  also 
in  Mr.  Adams'  draft,  and  under  which  the  coast  of 
the  United  States  was  exposed  to  surveillance,  with 
the  right  of  search,  by  British  cruisers,  as,  by  the 
other  terms  of  the  article,  were  the  coasts  of  Africa 
and  the  West  India  islands. 

The  delay  of  the  senate  in  disposing  of  the  treaty 
did  not  correspond  with  the  impatience  of  President 
Monroe,  and,  on  the  21st  of  May,  he  sent  in  a  special 
message  in  which  he  fully  explained  the  motives 
which  had  influenced  the  executive,  and  the  strong 
reasons  which  existed  for  its  ratification.  He  de- 
precated the  rejection  of  the  treaty  as  exposing  the 
nation  to  a  charge  of  insincerity  in  the  endeavor  to 


UNITED    STATES       GREAT     BRITAIN.      163 


suppress  the  trade,  and  that  its  first  and  indispensi- 
ble  consequence  would  be  to  constrain  the  execu- 
tive to  suspend  all  negotiations  with  every  Eu- 
ropean and  American  power  under  the  resolution  of 
the  house  of  representatives  of  February,  1823,  to 
make  the  trade  piracy,  while  denying  the  right  of 
search  for  the  pirate,  without  the  exercise  of  which 
the  declaration  would  be  valueless.  "It  must  be 
obvious,"  he  said,  "that  the  restriction  of  search  for 
the  pirates  to  the  African  coast,  is  incompatible 
with  the  idea  of  such  a  crime." 
r  The  senate,  however,  would  not  surrender  the 
amendments  in  deference  to  the  opinions  of  the 
president.  On  the  question,  "shall  the  word  Amer- 
ica stand  as  part  of  the  article.^"  it  was  decided  in 
the  negative;  yeas  23,  nays  20,  not  two-thirds.  A 
similar  motion  as  to  the  words  "and  of  the  West 
Indies,"  was  decided  in  the  afifirmative,  yeas  29,  nays 
14.  An  amendment  was  also  made  giving  either 
party  the  right  to  abrogate  the  treaty  upon  six 
months  notice  to  the  other. 

The  treaty  as  amended  was  finally  ratified  by 
the  senate  on  the  24th  of  May,  1824,  by  a  vote  of 
28  to  13.  (')  ;       ..  V  , 

Mr.  Adams  immediately  forwarded  the  condi- 
tionally ratified  treaty  to  Mr.  Rush  to  be  communi- 

(1)  The  13,  who  voted  against  ratification,  were  Bell,  of  New  Hampshire: 
Chandler  And  Holmes  of  Maine,  DeWolfot  Rhode  Island,  Dickerson  of  New  Jer. 
sey,  Elliott  ard  Ware  of  Georgia,  Oaillard  of  Soiilli  Carolina,  Macon  of  North  Car- 
olina, Kuggleit  of  Ohio,  Smith  of  Maryland,  Thomas  of  Illinois,  Van  Buren  of  New 
York. 

The  thirteen  also  voted  to  postpone  the  consideration  of  t\\t  treaty  till  Decem- 
ber following,  which  was  defeated  by  a  vote  of  26  to  16. 

Among  the  men  distinguished  in  American  history,  who  voted  to  ratify,  were 
Andrew  Jackson,  Thomas  H.  Benton,  Robert  V.  Hayne  of  South  Carolina,  and 
Rufus  King.     Hayne,  Jackson  and  King  also  voted  to  retain  the  word,  America. 


POLITICAL    CONTROVERSIES 


cated  to  the  English  government,  with  the  assur- 
ance that  if  the  president  had  possessed  the  sole 
power  of  ratification  without  the  concurrence  of  two 
thirds  of  the  senate,  which  the  British  government 
well  understood  was  neccssaiy  to  give  final  effect  to 
the  convention,  he  was  fully  prepared  to  give  it. 

Mr.  Adams  considered  that  the  exception  of  the 
coast  of  America  from  the  seas,  upon  which  the  mu- 
tual right  of  capture  could  be  exercised,  had  refer- 
ence, in  the  views  of  the  senate,  to  the  coast  of  the 
United  States;  that  upon  no  part  of  the  coast,  un- 
less within  the  Gulf  of  Mexico,  was  there  any  prob- 
ability that  slave  vessels  would  ever  be  found,  and 
that  the  necessity  for  the  exercise  of  the  right  to 
capture,  was  therefore  no  greater  upon  the  coast  of 
the  United  States  thian  it  would  be  on  the  coast  of 
Europe.  He  stated  that  the  president  indulged  the 
hope  that  the  convention,  if  modified  as  proposed, 
would  contribute  largely  to  two  objects  of  high  im- 
portance; to  the  friendly  relations  between  the  two 
countries,  and  to  the  general  interests  of  humanity. 

The  British  government  manifested  a  disposition 
to  accede  to  all  the  modifications,  except  that  which 
eliminated  the  words  "and  America." 

Mr.  George  Canning,  the  British  secretary,  ex- 
pressed his  confidence  in  the  sincerity  and  desire  of 
the  president  for  the  ratification  of  the  convention 
in  its  original  shape,  but  complained  of  the  inequal- 
ity existing  between  parties,  where  a  convention 
fully  ratified  on  the  one  side,  was  open  to  modifica- 
tions on  the  other  through  the  intervention  of  the 
senate  as  prescribed  by  the  constitution  of  the 
United  States,  which,  perhaps,  precluded  exception 


UNITED    STATES   -GREAT     BRITAIN.      165 


to  any  particular  act  of  revision.  "But,"  said  he,  "a 
substantial  change  is  proposed  upon  a  point  origin- 
ally proposed  by  direction  of  the  American  govern- 
ment. The  right  of  visiting  vessels  suspected  of 
slave  trading,  when  extended  alike  to  the  West  In- 
dies and  to  the  coast  of  America,  implied  an  equal- 
ity of  vigilance,  and  did  not  necessarily  imply  the 
existence  of  grounds  of  suspicion  on  either  side;  the 
removal  of  this  right  as  to  the  coast  of  America  and 
its  continuance  to  the  West  Indies,  cannot  but  ap- 
pear to  imply  the  existence  on  one  side  and  not  on 
the  other,  of  a  just  ground  either  of  suspicion  of  mis- 
conduct or  for  apprehension  of  an  abuse  of  authority. 

To  such  an  equality,  leading  to  such  an  inference, 
his  majesty's  government  can  never  advise  his  ma- 
jesty to  consent.  It  would  have  been  rejected  if  pro- 
posed in  the  course  of  negotiation.  It  can  still  less 
be  admitted  as  a  new  demand  after  the  conclusion 
of  the  treaty,"    «     ■  '      ^  .  •.  •     '"  -.    • 

He  stated  that  full  power  would,  however,  be 
given  to  the  English  cAnrg^i'  d'  affaires  at  Washing- 
ton to  conclude  a  treaty  with  the  modifications,  ex- 
cept as  to  the  elimination  of  the  words  "and  Amer- 
ica, but  that  "his  majesty  will  not  be  advised  to 
conclude  and  sign  the  like  treaty  here,  to  be,  as 
before,  ratified  by  his  majesty  and  to  be  again  sub- 
jected, after  ratification  by  his  majesty,  to  altera- 
tions by  the  senate  of  the  United  States." 

The  British  government  was  evidently  greatly 
disappointed  by  the  action  of  the  American  treaty 
making  power,  and  was,  perhaps,  unfortunately  re- 
strained by  a  sense  of  honor,  from  excepting  the 
American  coast.      Great  Britain  does  not,  indeed, 


i66 


POLITICAL    CON  T  U  O  V  E  R  S  I  E  S 


seem  to  have  been  unmindful  of  the  advantages,  in 
the  time  of  Mr.  Canning's  predecessor  in  office,  of  a 
restricted  right  of  search.  In  the  convention  be- 
tween Great  Britain  and  Holland,  for  the  suppres- 
sion of  the  slave  trade,  a  line  was  drawn  from  the 
Straits  of  Gibraltar  to  a  point  in  the  United  States 
so  as  to  except  out  of  its  operation,  what  were  called 
the  European  seas,  and  in  a  note  to  the  French  en- 
voy at  the  congress  of  Aix  La  Chapelle,  held  in 
1818,  and  having  in  view  to  render  more  effectual 
the  treaty  of  Vienna  in  18 15  for  the  suppression  of 
the  trade,  Lord  Castlereagh  said  that  in  pursuit  of 
so  noble  a  purpose  although  Great  Britain  was  will- 
ing to  run  some  risk  of  inconvenience,  still  there 
was  a  distinction  which  could  be  reasonably  taken 
"between  giving  effect  to  this  system  upon  the  coast 
of  Africa,  and  for  a  certain  distance,  say  two  hun- 
dred leagues  from  that  particular  coast,  and  the  ex- 
tending the  same  over  the  entire  of  the  Atlantic 
and  the  West  Indian  seas.  The  latter  as  the  most 
effectual  measure.  Great  Britain  has  preferred,  but 
she  would  not  be  less  disposed  to  attach  value  to 
the  more  limited  application  of  the  principle." 

Commenting  upon  the  British  strictures,  Mr. 
Adams  wrote  to  Mr.  Rush,  that  "when  the  treaty 
was  under  consideration,  it  was  neither  known  nor 
believed  that  it  had  been  ratified  by  the  British  gov- 
ernment; that  in  the  full  powers  of  European  gov 
ernments  to  their  ministers,  the  sovereign  usually 
promises  to  ratify  that  which  the  minister  shall  con- 
clude in  his  name;  that  if  the  minister  transcends 
his  powers,  although  unknown  to  the  adverse  party, 
the.  sovereign  is  not  bound  to  ratify,  and  that  one 


UNTIED    STATES      GREAT     11  RITA  IN.      167 


instance  had  occurred  when  engagfement-.3  made 
with  the  United  States  by  a  British  minister  had 
been  repudiated  by  his  own  government;  that  treat- 
ies together  with  the  constitution, are  the  supreme  law 
of  the  land;  that  while  the  President  was  authorized 
to  initiate  negotiations,  they  could  not  be  consum- 
mated without  the  ratification  of  the  Senate,  and 
that  without  this  reserved  right  of  scrutiny  and  ap- 
proval, a  minister,  entrusted  with  full  power  to  ne- 
gotiate, \vOuld  be  armed  with  a  power  dangerous  to 
the  most  vital  inte  ests  of  the  nation." 

In  November,  1824,  Mr.  Addington,  the  British 
representative  in  Washington,  presented  the  ques- 
tion of  renewal  of  negotiations  upon  the  basis  au- 
thorized by  his  government.  In  the  course  of  his 
communication  to  the  American  secretary  of  state, 
he  dwelt  upon  the  condition  required  by  the  Amer- 
ican minister  of  a  parliamentary  denunciation  of  the 
slave  trade  as  piracy,  when  exercised  by  British 
subjects,  and  the  full  compliance  with  this  condition. 
He  left  it  to  his  own  sense  of  honor  and  equity  to 
determine  the  justice  of  accepting  the  value  already 
paid  for  a  stipulated  act  and  withholding  perfor- 
mance of  that  act;  that  having  unlimited  confidence 
in  the  good  faith  of  the  American  government  and 
their  sincerity  to  execute  a  treaty  signed  by  their 
plenipotentiary  in  London,  his  majesty  had,  without 
delay,  ratified  the  treaty  in  the  full  security  of  its 
ratification  by  the  American  government;  "that  no 
shadow  of  a  suspicion  ever  entered,  ever  could  enter 
his  majesty's  mind  that  that  ratification  could  be 
withheld  in  whole  or  in  part." 

Mr.  Adams  replied  that  the  president  regretted 


% 


n 
'"A 

'1 


1 68 


POLITICAL    CONTROVERSIES 


that  the  British  government  declined  to  concur  in 
the  ratification  of  the  treaty  with  the  proposed 
modifications,  but  he  thought  it  advisable,  in  view 
of  the  success  of  the  object  in  which  both  govern- 
ments were  warmly  interested,  to  refer  the  whole 
subject  to  the  deliberate  advisement  of  congress. 

On  the  2d  of  March,  1825,  Mr.  Addington  ad- 
dressed the  secretary  of  state,  asking  for  informa- 
tion as  to  the  result  of  this  reference.  In  April,  Mr. 
Clay,  then  secretary  of  state  in  the  place  of  Mr. 
Adams,  just  elevated  to  the  presidency,  replied  that 
the  late  president  had  delayed  a  definitive  answer 
to  his  note  of  the  previous  November,  from  an  anx- 
ious desire  to  ascertain  the  practicability  of  recon- 
ciling, if  possible,  the  views  of  the  two  governments; 
that,  with  that  view,  the  mutual  correspondence  had 
been  submitted  to  congress,  but  thus  far  the  latter 
had  expressed  no  opinion  upon  the  subject;  that  a 
convention  having  the  suppression  of  the  slave  trade 
as  its  object,  had  been  entered  into  with  the  Repub- 
lic of  Columbia,  on  the  loth  of  November,  1824,  by 
the  terms  of  which,  the  coasts  of  America  were  ex- 
cepted, but  in  other  respects  conforming  to  the 
model  of  that  with  Great  Britain,  and  that,  with  this 
conciliating  exception,  the  senate,  after  full  deliber- 
ation and  in  the  exercise  of  its  constitutional  pow- 
ers, had  by  a  large  majority  refused  to  ratify.  From 
this  action,  he  thought  it  was  clearly  to  be  inferred 
that  a  treaty  with  Great  Britain  for  the  same  ob- 
ject, and  even  with  the  word  America  omitted, 
would  not  receive  the  approbation  of  the  senate. 

As  to  the  allusion  to  the  act  of  Parliament  mak- 
•  ing  the  offense  piracy,  Mr.  Clay  said  "that  the  pres- 


UNTIED    STATES -GREAT     BRITAIN.      169 


ident  conceived  that  it  would  conduce  to  the  suc- 
cess of  the  negotiation,  if  the  British  parliament 
should  previously  declare  the  trade  piracy,  as  the 
United  States  had  already  done;  that  however 
much  it  may  have  been  governed  by  an  accommo- 
dating spirit  towards  the  United  States,  the  British 
parliament  had,  doubtless,  acted  upon  its  own  sense 
of  the  enormity  of  the  offense  in  attaching  to  it  the 
penalties  of  piracy;  that  the  United  States  had  re- 
ceived no  peculiar  advantage  from  the  passage  of 
the  act,  an  I,  the  convention  having  failed,  its  con- 
tinuance was  at  the  pleasure  of  the  British  parlia- 
ment; that  the  president,  without  indulging  in  un- 
availing regrets,  hoped  that  the  result  would  not  be 
attributed  to  any  unfriendly  feeling  on  the  part  of 
the  United  States,  and  that  neither  government 
would  slacken  their  separate  or  united  efforts  to  ex- 
tirpate by  all  practicable  modes,  a  traffic  condemned 
by  reason,  religion  and  humanity." 

Mr.  Addington  soon  after  replied,  that  however 
great  the  disappointment,  the  unfortunate  result 
.  would  not  be  considered  as  in  the  least  affecting  the 
friendly  relations  existing  between  the  two  govern- 
ments. He  referred  to  an  erroneous  construction 
that  had  been  placed  upon  his  note  of  November; 
that  he  put  the  case  as  a  point  of  conscience,  not 
one  of  right;  that  he  urged  his  argument  in  the 
form  of  an  appeal,  not  of  a  demand,  and  that  it  was 
an  error  to  suppose  that  he  contended  that  the  pas- 
sage of  the  act  of  parliament,  denouncing  the  slave 
trade  as  piracy,  under  the  circumstances,  rendered 
it  imperative  upon  the  American  government  to  ac- 
cede to  the  convention,  even  at  the  expense  of  the 
22 


■I 


':.;■) 


170 


POLITICAL    CONTROVERSIES 


sacrifice  of  their  constitutional  prerogatives.  He 
said  that  the  act  itself,  viewed  morally,  conformed 
to  the  views  of  parliament;  without  it,  the  laws  of 
England  were  adequate  to  suppress  the  slave  trade 
by  British  subjects;  had  it  not  been  for  the  solicita- 
tion of  the  United  States,  it  would  never  have  been 
passed,  but  that  its  revocation,  though  within  the 
competence  of  parliament,  had,  owing  to  subsequent 
events,  become  morally  impracticable. 

In  reviewing  the  correspondence  of  the  two  gov- 
ernmants  and  the  action  of  their  highest  legislative 
b)lies,  no  doubt  can  exist  that  the  great  pulse  of 
the  two  nations  beat  strongly  in  favor  of  the  sup- 
pression of  the  traffic.      Lord  Castlereagh  and  sub- 
sequently George  Canning,  his  successor  as  secre- 
tary of  foreign   affairs,   conducted  negotiations  for 
this  purpose  with  European  nations  and  with  the 
United  States  with  unflagging  zeal  and  with  signal 
ability.     On  the  part  of  the  United    States,    Presi- 
dent Monroe  met  the  advances  of  the  British  gov- 
ernment in  a  like  spirit  of  hostility  to  the  traffic,  and 
was  willing  to  concede  the  right   of  search.      The 
president's   cabinet   was  not  harmonious  upon  the 
subject.     It  included  J.  Q.  Adams  of  Massachusetts, 
recently  returned  from  Europe,  as  secretary  of  state, 
William  H.  Crawford  of  Georgia,  .secretary  of  the 
treasury,  and  John  C.  Calhoun   of  South  Carolina, 
secretary  of  war.      Of  the  division   in  the  cabinet, 
Mr.  Adams  subsequently  said:    "I  returned  home, 
and  held  the  situation  of  secretarv  of  st;ite  under  Mr. 
Monroe  and  was  the  medium  through  which  the  pro- 
posal of  the  British  government  was  afterwards  made. 
I  resisted  and  opposed  it  in  the  cabinet  with  all  my 


UNITED    STATES       G  K  E  AT     J)  R  IT  A  1  N.      171 


power,  and  though  not  a  slaveholder  myself,  I  had 
to  resist  the  slaveholding  members  of  the  cabinet  as 
well  as  Mr.  Monroe  himself,  for  they  were  all  in- 
clined to  concede  the  right.  ^'^ 

By  the  draft  of  the  convention  proposed  by  Mr. 
Adams,  the  whole  coast  of  the  United  States  was 
exposed  to  the  surveillance  of  authorized  British 
cruisers,  whose  commanders,  if  ill  disposed,  under 
pretext  of  being  in  pursuit  of  pirates,  could  have 
subjected  the  American  commercial  vessel  to  vexa- 
tious interruption  even  in  sight  of  its  destined  port. 
Any  abuse  in  this  respect  would,  however,  have 
been  probably  held  in  check,  if  not  absolutely  de 
feated,  by  the  proposed  amendment  of  the  treaty,  in 
which  Great  Britain  was  willing  to  acquiesce,  giving 
the  right  of  abrogation  upon  six  months  notice.  If. 
instead  of  allowing  such  wide  range  to  cruisers,  Mr. 
Adams  had  propo.sed  to  confine  their  operations  to 
the  well  known  channels  of  the  African  slave  trade 
or  to  within  a  certain  distance  of  the  African  coast 
as  Lord  Castlereagh,  in  18 17,  intimated  to  France 
he  was  willing  to  agree  to;  such  a  restriction,  Mr. 
Canning  informed  him,  would  have  been  rejected. 

Public  opinion  in  the  United  States  finally  set- 
tled into  the  conviction,  that  the  safest  course  for 
the  national  t  anquillity  and  honor  was  to  leave 
each  nation  to  combat  the  slave  trade  in  such  man- 
ner as  its  own  conscience  and  judgment  should  dic- 
tate. 

While  the  United  States  refrained  in  the  future 
from  conceding  any  right  of  search,  unless  within 
certain  prescribed  boundaries,  hostility  to  the  slave 


It,.; 


i 


i 


[  1;     Niles'  Reg.,  Vol.  «2,  Pafe  120, 


172 


POMTICAL    CONTROVERSIES 


traffic  remained  unabated.  American  cruisers  were 
alert  for  its  suppression,  and,  by  the  treaty  of  Wash- 
ington in  1842,  each  government  agreed  to  keep  a 
naval  force  of  not  less  than  eighty  guns  upon  the 
African  coast  for  the  suppression  of  the  traffic;  the 
squadrons  to  be  independent,  but  each  government 
vvias  to  give  such  instructions  to  its  officers  as  should 
most  effectually  enable  them  to  co-operate  in  pur- 
suit of  the  common  object. 

Although  the  treaty  was  so  clear  ia  its  terms  as 
seemingly  to  preclude  misunderstanding,  it  soon  be- 
came the  subject  of  discussion.  In  his  message  sub- 
mitting the  treaty  to  the  senate  for  ratification  in 
1842,  the  president  commented  upon  its  scope  and 
effect,  and  said  that  the  interests  of  the  United 
States  required  that  each  country  should  execute 
its  own  laws  and  obligations  by  its  own  means.  He 
added:  "The  examination  or  visitation  of  the  ves- 
sels of  one  nation  by  the  cruisers  of  another  for  any 
purposes,  except  those  known  and  acknowledged  by 
the  law  of  nations,  under  whatever  restraints  or  reg- 
ulations it  may  take  place,  may  lead  to  dangerous 
results.  It  is  far  better  by  other  means  to  super- 
cede any  supposed  necessity,  or  any  motive  for  such 
examination  or  visit;  that  for  the  purpose  of  remov- 
ing all  pretext  on  the  part  of  others  for  violating 
the  immunities  of  the  American  flag  upon  the  seas, 
as  they  exist  and  are  defined  by  the  law  of  nations," 
as  well  as  to  carry  into  effect  the  stipulations  of  the 
treaty  o*"  Ghent,  the  treaty,  then  submitted,  had 
been  entered  into.  The  British  government  was 
not  disposed  to  sanction  even  by  silence,  the  idea, 
which  it  considered  the  message  was  calculated  to 


UNITED    STATES      GRF:  AT     BRITAIN.      173 


create,  that  it  had,  in  any  degree,  modified  or  aban- 
doned by  the  treaty,  its  own  views  of  the  right  of 
visitation  and  search,  which  it  had  so  long  and 
strenuously  maintained. 

In  February,  1843,  Mr.  Fox,  the  Hritish  minister 
at  Washington,  called  at  the  state  department,  and, 
in  conformity  with  instructions  from  Lord  Aber- 
deen, her  majesty's  principal  secretary  of  state  for 
foreign  affairs,  presented  the  views  of  his  govern- 
ment. He  stated  that  no  concessions  were  made  bv 
either  party  upon  the  right  of  search  and  visitation, 
and  that  none  were  required  in  concluding  the 
treaty;  "The  British  government,"  he  said,  "made 
no  pretension  to  interfere,  in  any  manner  whatever, 
either  by  detention,  visit  or  search,  with  the  vessels 
of  the  United  States  known  or  believed  to  be  such, 
but  that  it  sL  11  maintained  and  would  exercise,  when 
necessary,  its  own  right  to  ascertain  the  genuine- 
ness of  any  flag  which  a  suspected  vessel  might 
bear;  that  if,  in  the  exercise  of  this  r^^^ht,  either 
from  involuntary  error  or  in  spite  of  every  precaution 
loss  or  injury  should  be  sustained,  a  prompt  repara- 
tion would  be  afforded,  but  that  it  should  entertain, 
for  a  single  instant,  the  notion  of  abandoning  the 
right  itself,  would  be  quite  impossible."  He  was 
informed  that  the  views  of  the  American  govern- 
ment upon  the  subject,  would  be  communicated  to 
its  minister  at  London  to  be  submitted  to  the  con- 
sideration of  her  majesty's  secretary  of  state  for  for- 
eign affairs.  This  was  soon  after  done  by  Mr.  Web- 
ster, the  American  secretary  of  state,  who  contro- 
verted with  great  ability  the  English  distinction  be- 
tween the  right  of  visitation  and  the  right  of  search, 


^  i 


I 


r 
I 


11 


POLITICAL     CONTROVERSIES 


and  alluded  to  the  circumstances,  which,  in  a  few 
instances,  justified  a  resort  to  either  of  them  in  a 
time  of  peace  tor  the  purpose  of  enforcing  revenue 
laws  or  municipal  regulations,  when  the  right  is 
usually  exercised  within  a  marine  league  of  the 
shore,  or  when  the  vessel  is  jus<-ly  suspected  of  vio- 
lating the  law  of  nations  by  piratical  aggressions. 
His  communication  was  characterized  by  that  clear- 
ness of  statement,  cogency  of  argument  and  pro- 
found knowledge  of  international  law,  that  justly 
entitles  him  to  a  place  in  the  foremost  rank  of  di- 
plomatists; but  subsequent  treaties  divested  the  com- 
munication of  its  importance  as  far  as  related  to  the 
slave  trade. 

Both  governments,  however,  applied  themselves 
with  earnestness  and  vigor  to  carrying  into  effect 
the  stipulations  of  the  treaty,  and  their  respective 
squadrons  were  constantly  employed  in  efforts  to 
suppress  the  trade.  The  vast  extent  of  coast,  which 
required  watching,  gave,  however,  great  facilities 
for  a  contraband  trade,  which  had  attained  to  a  fear- 
ful magnitude.  It  was  charged  that  the  extensive 
and  fraudulent  use,  which  was  made  of  the  Ameri- 
can flag  and  of  American  papers,  for  the  purpose  of 
avoiding  detention  and  search  by  British  cruisers, 
greatly  contributed  to  this  unsatisfactory  result.  It 
is  probable  that  the  complaints  in  this  respect 
would  have  been  to  a  large  extent,  if  not  entire!}', 
obviated,  and  the  suppression  of  the  traffic  have  be- 
come less  difficult  if  a  modified  right  of  search  had 
existed  upon  the  African  and  West  India  coasts 
similar  to  that  which,  at  a  later  period,  was  ccmced- 
cd  by  the  two  governments. 


UNITED    STATES      GREAT     BRITAIN. 


175 


of 


iftts 


In  1850,  Brazil  embarked  in  the  war  against  the 
traffic,  declared  it  piracy  and  combined  her  efforts 
with  other  nations  for  its  suppression.  The  grad- 
ual diminution  of  the  importation  of  slaves  into  the 
Brazilian  empire,  shows  how  much  was  accom- 
plished by  the  efforts  of  christian  nations  in  con- 
junction with  the  influence  of  Christian  settlements 
upon  the  African  coast.  Sixty  thousand  slaves  were 
imported  into  Brazil  in  1848,  according  to  reports 
made  to  the  Brazilian  government;  in  185 1,  the 
number  was  reduced  to  3,287  of  which  1,006  were 
captured  by  a  Brazilian  cruiser,  and  in  1852,  only 
oiu-  slave  vessel  was  known  to  have  landed  on  the 
Brazilian  coast.  ^ 

Speaking  of  the  condition  of  the  slave  trade  on 
the  south  coast  in  185  i,  the  British  commander  on 
that  coast  said,  that  from  his  own  observation,  and 
from  information  upon  which  he  could  rely,  that 
trade»had  "never  been  in  a  more  depressed  state,  in 
a  state  almost  amounting  to  suppression,  and  that 
this  arises  from  the  acti-'e  exertions  of  her  majesty's 
squadrons  on  both  sides  of  the  Atlantic,  and  the 
cordial  co-operation  which  has  been  established  be- 
tween the  cruisers  of  Great  Britain  and  the  United 
States  on  this  coast,  to  carry  out  the  intention  of 
the  Washington  treaty,  and  latterly  from  the  new 
measures  of  the  Brazilian  government." 

In  1862,  the  United  States  having  proposed  to 
concede  a  qualified  right  of  search  within  certain 
boundaries,  this  was  acceded  to  bv  Great  Britain 
and  a  treaty  was  concluded,  which  was  unanimously 
ratified  by  the  American  senate.  It  stipulated  that 
the  cruisers  of  the  two  governments,  under  certain 


■ 

'J  i 


176 


POLITICAL    CONTROVERSIES 


conditions,  could  visit,  detain  and  send  away  for 
trial,  such  merchant  vessels  of  the  two  nations  as 
upon  reasonable  grounds  should  be  suspected  of  being 
or  having  been  engaged  in  the  African  slave  trade. 
The  circumstances  under  which  the  detention  and 
search  could  be  made,  and  the  rules,  which  should 
govern  in  the  trial  and  condemnation  of  the  vessel, 
were  carefully  laid  down.  For  the  trial  of  the 
seized  vessel,  it  was  agreed  that  there  should  be  es- 
tablished with  as  little  delay  as  practicable,  three 
mixed  courts  of  justice,  formed  of  an  equal  number 
of  individuals  of  the  two  nat'ons,  named  for  the  pur- 
pose by  their  respective  governments.  The  locali- 
ties, where  these  courts  should  act,  were  duly  desig- 
nated, no  appeal  was  allowed  from  their  decisions, 
and  the  exercise  of  the  reciprocal  right  of  search 
and  detention  was  confined  within  the  distarce  of 
two  hundred  miles  from  the  coast  of  Africa,  and  to 
the  southward  of  the  thirty  second  parallel  of, north 
latitude,  and  within  thirty  leagues  of  the  island  of 
Cuba.  In  1863,  it  was  further  stipulated  that  the 
right  of  search  and  detention  could  also  be  exercised 
within  thirty  leagues  of  the  island  of  Madagascar, 
and  within  like  distance  of  the  islands  of  Porto 
Rico  and  San  Domingo. 

The  treaties  were  to  continue  in  force  for  ten 
years,  and  thereafter  were  liable  to  abrogation  at 
the  pleasure  of  either  party  upon  twelve  months  no- 
tice to  the  other. 

The  mixed  courts  were  abolished  by  treaty  in  1870. 
as  no  longer  necessary,  and  the  jurisdicti.  .1  exercised 
bv  them,  was  transferred  to  the  courts  of  the  one  or 
the  other  of  the  contracting  parties,   according  to 


UNITED     STATES-GRPwVT     BRITAIN.      177 


their  respe  :tive  modes  of  procedure  in  matters  of 
maritime  prize,  with  the  right  of  appeal. 

The  grounds  of  search  and  detention,  the  rules 
of  evidence  to  be  applied,  and  the  proceedings  con- 
sequent upon  adjudication,  were  continued  in  force 
as  fixed  by  previous  treaties. 

While  the  efforts  of  christian  nations  have  been 
so  successful  in  suppressing  the  slave  trade  upon 
the  west  coast  of  Africa,  they  have  not  proved 
equally  effective  upon  the  east  coast,  where,  said 
Livingstone, "the  Manyerma  cannibals,  among  whom 
I  spent  nearly  two  years,  are  innocents  compared 
with  nw  unprotected  Banian  fellow  subjects.  By 
their  Arab  agents,  they  compass  the  destruction  of 
more  human  lives  in  one  year  than  the  Manyerma 
do  for  their  fleshpots  in  ten — the  captives  are  not 
traded  for,  but  murdered  for,  and  the  gangs  which 
are  dragged  coastwise,  are  usually  not  slaves,  but 
captive  free  people,"  The  indignant  representa- 
tions of  Livingstone  reached  the  British  ministry  in 
1872,  through  the  agency  of  Stanley,  the  explorer, 
and  in  the  following  August,  when  proroguing  par- 
liament, the  queen  said:  "My  government  has 
taken  steps  intended  to  prepare  the  way  for  dealing 
more  effectually  with  the  slave  trade  on  the  east 
coast  of  Africa." 

The  most  effective  steps  in  the  suppression  of 
the  trade,  will  doubtless  result  from  those  recent 
explorations,  which  have  revealed  the  vast  capabil- 
ities oftho.se  hitherto  secluded  regions, — their  fertil- 
ity of  soil,  facilities  for  water  transportation  and 
their  large  population, — which  invite  with  strongest 
force  the  vivifying  touch  of  enlightcnd  and  progres- 
*3 


I 

I 

I 


■r, 
•I 


f 


tfi 


P  O  L  1  '1'  I  C  A  L     CONTROVERSIES 


sive  intellect.  Civilized  nations  have  finally  be- 
come aroused  to  the  importance  of  these  new  and 
opening  fields  of  commerce,  and  are  striving  by  am- 
icable negotiations,  to  determine  their  relative  rights 
to  their  use  and  occupancy.  Their  advance  implies 
warfare  upon  the  internal  and  external  African  slave 
trade. 

Perhaps,  however,  the  entire  suppression  of  the 
trade  in  the  interior  of  Africa,  the  complete  de- 
struction of  the  supply  of  slaves  for  exportation 
and  the  obliteration  of  the  revolting  picture  drawn 
by  Livingstone,  cannot  be  expected  until  the 
dark  and  degraded  sections  in  that  quarter  of 
tiiv.  globe,  shall  be  reached  by  the  advancing  light 
of  Christianity  and  civilization,  aided  by  the  genial 
and  invigorating  influence  of  modern  commercial 
enterprise. 


li  I 


CHAPTER     VII. 


EXTRADITION. 


By  the  treaty  of  1794,  provision  was  made  for 
the  extradition  of  any  person  accused  of  murder  or 
forgery  upon  such  evidence  as  would  be  required  to 
establish  criminality  for  the  offense  and  authorize 
commitment  under  the  laws  of  the  country  where 
he  should  be  found.  By  the  treaty  of  Washington, 
negotiated  in  1842,  the  schedule  of  offenses  was  so 
enlarged  as  to  include  murder,  attempts  to  murder, 
forgery,  the  uttering  of  forged  paper,  piracy,  rob- 
bery and  arson.  Soon  after  the  treaty  of  1794  went 
into  effect,  and  during  the  administration  of  John 
Adams,  a  requisition  was  made  by  the  British  gov- 
ernment, for  the  surrender  of  one  Thomas  Nash, 
claimed  as  a  British  subject  and  charged  with  the 
crime  of  murder,  while  attempting  to  escape  from  a 
British  frigate.  He  asserted  that  he  was  an  Amer- 
ican citizen,  known  as  Jonathan  Robbins,  and  that 
he  had  been  impressed  into  the  British  navy.  His 
statements  were  not  authenticated  to  the  satisfac- 
tion of  the  American  authorities,  his  surrender  was 
made,  and  he  was  tried  by  a  court  martial,  found 
guilty  and  executed.  It  was  reported  that,  before 
execution,  he  admitted  that  he  was  not  an  Ameri- 
can citizen,  but  an  Irishman.  The  surrender  was 
met  by  a  strong  current  of  opposition  in  the  United 
States,  and  the  conduct  of  the  executive  was  bitter- 
ly denounced.  Conspicuous  among  his  assailants, 
were  Edward  Livingston,  Albert  Gallatin  and  John 
Randolph,  all,  for  many  years,  prominently  identi- 
fied with  the  political  history  of  the  United  States 


i8o 


p  o  L  rr  I  C  A  L    C  O  N  r  R  O  V  E  U  S  I  E  s 


To  give  congressional  expression  to  the  popular  dis- 
content and  indignation,  a  resolution  was  finally  in- 
troduced into  the  house  of  representatives  by  Liv- 
ingston for  the  purpose  of  condemning  the  action 
of  the  president.      This  at  once  encountered  strong 
and  able  resistance.     James  A.  Bayard  of  Delaware, 
John  Marshall  of  Virginia,  and  other  eminent  men 
of  that  day,  displayed  signal  ability  in  his  defense. 
Marshall's  speech  on  the  occasion  was  looked  upon 
as  a  masterly  argument,  logical  and  compact,  and  a 
profound  exposition  of  the  duty  of  the  government 
under  the  treaty.      Nash   had    alleged    under   oath 
that  he  was  a  native  of  Danbury   in  the  state   of 
Connecticut,  but  his  statement  was  disproved.      At 
that  time,  however,  when   England  was  exercising 
with  high  and  arbitrary  hand,   her  practice  of  im- 
pressment, his  appeal  for  protection,  at  first,  made  a 
profound    impression    upon    the   American  people. 
Mr.  Marshall  undoubtedly  expressed  their  feelings, 
when  he  declared  that  he  fully  concurred  with  Mr. 
Gallatin,  in  the  opinion,  that  an  American   seaman, 
who  had  been  impressed  and  who  committed  homi- 
cide in  attempting  to  escape  from  his  involuntary 
service,  should  not  be  given  up  as  a  murderer.     Mr. 
Livingston,  on  the  other  side,  said  that  he  believed 
that  Nash  was  an  Irishman,  and  was  guilty  of  the 
crime  with  which  he  was  charged.      His  resolution, 
however,  was  not  framed  with  reference   to  those 
points,  but  upon  the  theory  that  he  had   not  been 
allowed    that    judicial    investigation    of  the    facts, 
which  he  was  entitled  to  under  the  treaty  and  the 
laws   of  the   country.       In   combatting   this  view, 
Marshall,  afterward,  for  a  long  time  the  illustrious 


UNTIKD    STATES      GREAT     BRITAIN.      i8i 


chief  justice  of  the  United  States  court,  insisted  that 
the  case  of  Nash  was  .unquestionably  within  the 
purview  of  the  27th  article  of  the  treaty,  that  it  was 
a  proper  question  for  executive  and  not  judicial  de- 
cision, and  that  the  president,  by  his  course,  had 
not  interfered  with  judicial  decisions.  The  debate 
was  a  protracted  one,  and  finally  resulted  in  the  de- 
feat of  the  resolution  by  a  vote  of  62  to  35.  The 
discussion,  while  it  allayed  the  public  excitement, 
vindicated  the  good  faith  of  the  American  people  in 
fulfilling  treaty  obligations. 

Disagreements  subsequently  arose  between  the 
two  governments  as  to  the  requirements  of  interna- 
tional law  and  as  to  the  obligations  and  construc- 
tions of  treaties  in  matters  of  extradition.  This  an- 
tagonism was  strongly  presented,  when  the  United 
States  demanded  the  surrender  of  persons  claimed 
as  slaves  and  found  within  the  British  dominions. 
Admitting  that  the  treaty  of  1794.  was  in  force,  the 
escape  of  a  slave  into  British  territory,  was  not  an 
extradition  offense,  but  to  make  it  such,  Mr.  Clay, 
secretary  of  state  under  J.  Q.  Adams,  and  presuma- 
bly with  his  concurrence,  instructed  Mr.  Gallatin, 
the  American  minister  at  the  court  of  St.  James,  to 
propose  a  stipulation  for  "a  mutual  surrender  of  all 
persons  held  to  service  or  labor,  who  escape  into 
the  territories  of  the  other,"  and  suggested  the  ben- 
efits of  such  a  stipulation  to  West  India  planters. 
In  1827,  Mr.  Barbour,  the  successor  of  Mr.  Gallatin, 
was  directed  to  renew  the  application,  but  the  Brit- 
ish minister  replied  that  "the  law  of  parliament 
gave  freedom  to  every  slave,  who  effected  his  land- 
ing on  British  grounds." 


|v 


1 82 


P()MTICAI<    CONTROVKKSI  KS 


\t 


Prior  to  1 840,  several  American  vessels,  with 
slaves  on  board,  were  either  wrecked  upon  the  coast 
or  forced  into  the  ports  of  the  British  colonial  islands 
through  stress  of  weather,  and  the  slaves  were  de- 
clared free  by  the  English  authorities.  Damages 
were  claimed  of  England  for  their  liberation,  and  on 
the  25th  of  January,  1840,  the  president  announced 
by  message,  that  England  was  prepared  to  pay 
;^23,500,  that  that  sum  was  granted  to  cover  two  or 
three  cases  only,  and  that  in  the  future,  all  such 
claims  would  be  refused.  The  payment  was  allowed 
for  those  liberated  before  the  abolition  of  slav- 
ery in  the  British  West  India  islands.  The 
position  assumed  by  Great  Britain  was  bitterly 
assailed  in  the  United  States,  and  the  American 
senate  unanimously  declared  by  resolutions,  that 
a  vessel  on  the  high  seas,  in  time  of  peace, 
engaged  in  a  lawful  voyage,  is,  according  to 
the  law  of  nations,  under  the  exclusive  jurisdiction 
of  the  state  to  which  her  flag  belongs,  as  much  so  as 
if  constituting  a  part  of  its  own  domain;  and  if 
forced  by  stress  of  weather  or  other  unavoidable 
cause  into  the  port  and  under  the  jurisdiction  of  a 
friendly  power,  she  and  her  cargo  and  persons  on 
board,  with  all  the  rights  as  established  by  the  laws 
of  the  state  to  which  they  belong,  would  be  placed 
under  the  protection  which,  the  law  of  nations  ex- 
tends to  the  unfortunate  under  such  circumstances; 
and  that  the  liberation  of  slaves,  placed  by  stress  of 
weather  within  their  jurisdiction,  by  the  English 
local  authorities,  was  an  act  in  violation  of  the  law 
of  nations,  and  unjust  to  the  American  citizens  to 
whom  they  belonged. 


\> 


UNITKD     STATES-GREAT     BRITAIN.       183 


:x- 

[es; 

of 

ish 

aw 

to 


While  regretting  the  introduction  of  the  resolu- 
tions as  tending  to  no  benefit,  Mr.  Clay  said  that  he 
approved  of  them  as  correct  in  principle;  that  if  a 
negotiation  were  pending,  they  might  exercise  some 
influence,  but  in  the  present  case,  where  the  lan- 
guage of  Lord  Palmerston  was  so  strong  as  to  for- 
bid the  expectation  of  a  resumption  of  negotiation, 
he  saw  no  utility  in  their  adoption. 

While  such  was  the  position  taken  by  Great 
Hritain  as  to  cases  arising  prior  to  1840,  another 
case  arose  in  1841,  which  brought  into  question  the 
treaty  of  1794,  which  provided  for  the  surrender  of 
a  certain  class  of  crijTiinals. 

In  October,  1841,  the  brig  Creole,  employed  in 
transporting  slaves  from  Richmond,  Virginia,  to 
New  Orleans,  was  seized  by  the  slaves,  who  killed 
one  man,  wounded  the  captain  and  two  of  the  crew, 
and  succeeded  in  taking  the  vessel  into  the  port  of 
Nassau,  in  the  British  island  of  New  Providence. 
Upon  investigation,  nineteen  of  them  were  impris- 
oned by  the  local  authorities,  as  having  participated 
in  the  seizure,  and  the  matter  was  referred  to  the 
British  government  for  advice  and  instruction. 

In  January,.  1842,  Mr.  Webster,  secretary  of 
state,  instructed  the  American  minister  in  London 
to  present  the  case  to  the  British  government  with 
a  distinct  declaration  that,  if  the  facts  turn  out  as 
stated,  it  was  a  clear  case  for  indemnification. 

In  England,  it  was  alleged  that  there  were  no 
existing  treaty  stipulations  or  international  law  un- 
der which  the  parties  implicated  in  the  seizure  of  the 
Creole,  could  be. claimed,  and  under  this  view,  their 
surrender  was  refused  and  their  release  ordered. 
»4  '' 


I 


i  ■ 


^. 


vO^  ^^"^  V^<^ 


IMAGE  EVALUATION 
TEST  TARGET  (MT-3) 


// 


1.0 


1.1 


11.25 


25 
2.2 


lU 

■a     I 
u 

WMU 


US  izo 


IJi& 


6" 


ScMices 
Carporatioii 


\ 


23  WMT  iMAIN  STRHT 

WIISTIR.N.Y.  I4SM 

( 71* )  •73-4503 


4^ 


Ik. 


\ 


wm 


v> 


vV 


MiK 


■84 


POLITICAL    CONTROVERSIES 


When  negotiating  the  treaty  of  1842,  Mr.  Web- 
ster proposed  to  incorporate  an  article  providing 
for  the  restitution  of  vessels  with  slaves  on  board,  if 
driven  by  stress  of  weather  or  taken  by  force  to  one 
of  the  British  islands,  while  on  a  voyage  through 
the  channel  between  the  Bahama  islands  and  the 
coastof  the  United  States.  Such  a  provision  would 
have  included  such  a  case  as  that  of  the  Creole.  In 
a  communication  to  the  British  negotiator,  he  ar- 
gued the  importance  of  such  an  arrangement  with 
great  earnestnt  2  and  ability,  contending  that,  even 
in  the  absence  of  a  treaty  stipulation  upon  the  sub- 
ject, such  restitut'  .:-  was  required  by  international 
law,  and  especial';,  // the  laws  of  hospitality.  Lord 
Ashburton  replied,  that  such  was  the  feeling  in  Eng- 
land upon  the  subject  of  slavery,  that  the  question 
was  one  of  extreme  delicacy  for  the  British  ministry 
to  handle,  ani  that  he  thought  that  the  transfer  of 
the  negotiation  upon  it  to  London,  would  eventual- 
ly conduce  to  an  arrangement  that  would  prove- 
more  satisfactory  to  both  parties.  While  startled 
by  some  of  the  statements,  he  admitted  the  great 
force  of  Mr.  Webster's  arguments,  and  awaiting  the 
decision  of  his  government,  he  engaged  that,  in  the 
mean  time,  instructions  should  be  issued  to  the  gov- 
ernors of  the  islands,  that,  in  executing  their  own 
laws,  they  observe  the  laws  and  duties  of  hospitality, 
and  that  these  do  not  justify  any  further  inquisition 
into  the  state  of  persons  or  things  on  board  of  a  ves- 
.sel,  than  may  be  indispensible  for  the  enforcement 
of  the  municipal  law  of  the  colony,  and  for  the  prop- 
er regulation  of  its  harbors  and  waters.  Whatever 
expectations  were  produced  by  the  communication 


UNITED     STATES- GREAT     BRITAIN.       185 


of  Lord  Ashburton,  they  Were  dispelled  by  the  de- 
cision in  the  case  of  the  Creole,  and,  however  much 
this  may  have  been  due  to  the  anti-slavery  feeling 
of  England,  as  far  as  it  rested  upon  international 
law,  it  stands  forth  in  direct  antagonism,  not  only 
with  the  argument  of  Mr.  Webster,  but  with  the 
doctrine  laid  down  by  the  unanimous  vote  of  the 
United  States  senate. 

After  the  treaty  of  Washington  in  1842,  was  con- 
cluded, an  act  was  passed  by  the  British  parliament 
in  1843,  providing  for  the  surrender  of  a  person 
claimed  under  the  treaty,  who  was  to  be  delivered 
to  an  officer  to  be  conveyed  to  the  United  States 
**to  be  tried  foe  the  crime  of  which  such  person 
should  be  so  accused." 

Criminals  were  mutually  surrendered  under  the 
treaty  until  a  question  was  raised  in  the  case  of  Bur- 
ley,  who  was  surrendered  by  the  Canadian  authori- 
ties in  1865,  on  a  charge  .of  robbery,  as  to  the  right 
of  the  United  States  to  put  him  on  trial  for  any 
other  offense.  To  prevent  this,  an  appeal  was 
made  to  the  British  government,  but  Earl  Russell, 
secretary  of  foreign  affairs,  replied  that  it  would  be 
a  breach  of  good  faith,  against  which  her  majesty's 
government  might  justly  remonstrate,  to  obtain  the 
extradition  of  Burley  for  one  offense  and  put  him  on 
trial  for  another,  but  that  if  the  United  States 
should  bona  fide  pu<:  him  on  trial  for  the  offense,  on 
account  of  which  he  was  given  up,  "that  it  would  be 
difficult  to  question  the  right  of  that  government  to 
put  him  upon  his  trial  for  piracy,  also  for  any  other 
offense  which  he  may  be  accused  of  having  com- 
mitted within  their  territory,  whether  such  qffense 


i86 


POLITICAL    CONTROVERSIES 


was  or  was  not  a   ground   of  extradition,   or    even 
within  the  treaty." 

In  January,  1871,  a  similar  question  was  raised 
in  the  case  of  one  Caldwell,  who,  in  a  petition  to  the 
governor-general  of  Canada,  averred  that  he  had 
been  extradited  on  a  charge  of  forgery,  and  had 
been  indicted  and  was  about  to  be  tried  in  the  cir- 
cuit court  of  the  southern  district  of  New  York  for 
an  offense,  which  did  not  come  within  the  schedule 
of  extradition  crimes.  He  also  raised  the  same 
point  before  the  circuit  court,  but  Benedict,  judge, 
decided  against  him,  and,  as  a  precedent,  referred  to 
the  case  of  Heilbroun,  whc  ^ras  surrendered  to 
Great  Britain  on  a  charge  of  forgery,  but  who,  on 
his  arrival  in  Great  Britain,  was  indicted  and  con- 
victed of  embezzlement,  which  was  not  an  extradi- 
tion offense,  and  upon  the  same  facts  which  had 
been  claimed  before  the  commissioners  as  justifying 
his  surrender  for  forgery. 

The  question  presented  by  Caldwell,  having  been 
referred  by  the  Canadian  department  of  justice  to 
the  home  government,  Earl  Kimberly,  secretary  of 
state  for  the  colonies,  replied  adversely  to  the 
grounds  assumed  in  his  petition,  and  that  her  majes- 
ty's government  were  advised  "that  there  is  nothing 
in  the  convention  which  would  preclude  the  indict- 
ment of  the  petitioner  in  the  United  States  for  an  ad- 
ditional ofifense  which  is  not  enumerated  in  the  con- 
vention so  long  as  such  proceedings  were  not  sub- 
stituted for  proceedings  against  him  on  the  charge 
by  reason  of  which  he  was  surrendered. 

Prior  to  this  opinion  of  the  colonial  secretary, 
the  British  parliament  had  passed  in   1870,  an  act 


UNITED    STATES  — GREAT     BRITAIN.      187 


which  declared  that  "a  fugitive  criminal  shall  not 
be  surrendered  to  a  foreign  state  unless  provision  is 
made  by  the  law  of  that  state,  or  by  arrangement, 
that  the  fugitive  criminal  shall  not,  until  he  has 
been  restored  or  had  an  opportunity  of  returning  to 
her  majesty's  dominions,  be  detained  or  tried  in 
that  foreign  state  for  any  offense  committed  prior 
to  his  surrender,  other  than  the  extradition  crime 
proved  by  the  facts  on  which  the  surrender  is 
grounded." 

After  the  passage  of  this  act,  Great  Britain  con- 
tinued to  demand  the  surrender  of  criminals  from 
the  United  States  without  any  restrictions  except 
such  as  were  imposed  by  the  treaty  itself,  and  with- 
out any  intimation  that  it  modified  the  previous 
practice  of  the  two  governments  up  to  the  time  of 
the  arrest  of  Ezra  D.  Winslow  in  London  in  Febru- 
ary, 1876,  charged  v  ,th  extensive  forgeries. 

Upon  a  demand  for  his  surrender,  Lord  Der^'y, 
secretary  of  the  foreign  office,  referring  to  the  cL  -n 
advanced  by  the  United  States  to  try  Lawrei>ce,  re- 
cently extradited,  for  other  than  the  crime  for 
which  he  was  surrendered,  declined  to  order  the 
surrender  of  Winslow  without  an  assurance  that 
conformed  to  the  parliamentary  act  of  1870.  This 
the  United  States  refused  to  gi'  e,  and  after  a  pro- 
tracted correspondence,  conducted  with  signal  abil- 
ity by  Mr.  Fish,  the  American  secretary  of  state  on 
the  one  side,  and  by  Lord  Derby  on  the  other,  re- 
sulted in  the  discharge  of  Winslow  on  the  17th  and 
of  Brent,  also  accused  of  forgery,  on  the,  19th  day 
of  June. 

In  the  discussion,  Lord  Derby  insisted  that,  the 


188 


POLITICAL    CONTROVERSIES 


act  of  1870  required  nothing  under  the  treaty  of 
1842,  which  was  not  required  by  international  law; 
that  the  latter  did  not  permit  an  extradited  crimi- 
nal to  be  tried  for  any  offense,  other  than  that  for 
which  he  was  surrendered;  that  the  doctrine  of  po- 
litical asylum  could  only  be  maintained  by  such  a 
construction,  and  that,  in  subsequent  negotiations 
for  a  new  treaty,  the  draft,  presented  by  his  gov- 
ernment, included  the  principle  of  the  act  of  1870, 
which  was  not  objected  to  by  Mr.  Fish,  who  amend- 
ed it  by  adding  a  paragraph,  which  declared  that 
"no  person  shall  be  deemed  to  have  had  an  oppor- 
tunity of  returning  to  the  country  whence  he  was 
surrendered,  until  two  months,  at  least,  shr  1  have 
elapsed  after  he  shall  have  been  set  at  liberty  and 
free  to  return." 

Mr.  Fish  denied  that  the  construction  of-  the 
treaty  was  in  any  way  affected  by  international  law , 
and  that  a  subsequent  act  of  parliament,  unaccepted 
by  the  other  side,  could  either  enlarge  or  dimmish 
the  scope  of  treaty  stipulations;  He  insisted  that 
the  uniform  practice  and  decisions  of  English, 
American  and  Canadian  officials  and  courts  for 
nearly  thirty  years,  had  established  the  right  that 
when  a  fugitive  criminal  had  been  demanded  in  good 
faith  for  a  treaty  offense  and  was  surrendered  and 
tried  therefor,  he  could  be  tried  for  any  other  of- 
fense not  enumerated  in  the  treaty,  unless  of  a  po- 
litical character,  against  which  the  American  mind 
would  equally  revolt  with  the  English,  and  against 
which  public  opinion  in  both  countries  was  so  hos- 
tile as  not  to  make  it  a  supposable  case.  In  the 
course   of  the   discussion,   seizing  upon   some   un- 


UNTIED    STATES  — GREAT    BRITAIN.      189 


guarded  suggestion  of  Mr.  Hofifman,  the  United 
'  States  c/tar^^e  in  London,  Lord  Derby  proposed  a 
new  treaty,  simply  comprising  the  article  in  the 
draft  proposed  in  the  negotiation  of  1873,  with  the 
amendatory  paragraph  proposed  by  Mr.  Fish.  In  a 
conversation  which  ensued  between  the  American 
secretary  of  state  and  Sir  Edward  Thornton,  the 
British  minister,  on  the  27th  of  May,  1876,  the  for- 
n  er  stated  that  while  he  might  have  been  willing  to 
have  accepted  that  a  tide  in  a  treaty,  which  should 
give  the  United  States  a  larger  list  of  extradition 
crimes  and  other  advantages  as  improvements  upon 
the  treaty  of  1842,  it  could  not  be  expected  that  the 
United  States  would  now  relinquish  its  rights  under 
the  treaty  without  obtaining  any  of  the  advantages 
which  it  had  in  view;  that  he  thought  it  unwise  and 
the  time  unpropitio''s  to  attempt  to  patch  up  the 
treaty  of  1842,  but  tliat  the  United  States  would  not 
object  in  any  future  negotiations  that  a  treaty 
should  provide  that  a  surrendered  criminal  should 
not  be  tried  for  any  crime  that  was  not  enumerated 
as  an  extradition  crime,  and  should  not  be  tried  for 
any  political  offense. 

On  the  2oth  of  June,  President  Grant  transmit- 
ted a  message  to  congress,  calling  the  attention  of 
that  body  to  the  discharge  of  Winslow  and  Brent 
and  to  the  position  assumed  by  the  British  govern- 
ment under  the  act  of  parliament  of  1870.  He  said 
that  this  act  was  brought  to  the  notice  of  the  Amer- 
ican government  soon  after  its  enactment;  that  her 
majesty's  government  was  advised  that  the  United 
States  understood  that  it  made  no  change  in  the 
obligations  under  the  treaty  of  1842;    that,  without 


190 


POLITICAL     CONTROVERSIES 


any  dissent  from  this  view,  both  governments  had 
continued  to  make  requisitions  as  formerly,  until 
now  for  the  first  time,  it  is  proposed  in  the  case  of 
Winslow,  to  depart  from  a  practice  that  had  ob- 
tained for  more  than  thirty  years  and  it  is  assumed 
thut  under  the  act  of  1870,  the  British  government 
may  require  stipulations  not  embraced  in  the  treaty 
as  a  condition  for  the  surrender  of  a  criminal 
claimed  under  its  provisions,  and  that  the  claims 
now  put  forth  by  the  British  government,  he  had 
felt  it  his  duty  emphatically  to  repel.  The  posi- 
tion of  the  British  government,  he  thought,  if  ad- 
hered to,  could  not  but  be  regarded  as  the  abroga- 
tion of  the  treaty  article  on  extradition,  and  he  de- 
clared that  if  the  attitude  of  the  British  government 
remained  unchanged,  he  should  not,  in  the  absence 
of  an  expression  of  the  will  of  congress  to  the  con- 
trary, "take  any  action  either  in  making  or  granting 
requisitions  for  the  surrender  of  fugitive  criminals 
under  the  treaty  of  1842." 

In  a  communication  dated  the  30th  of  June,  to 
the  American  charge,  in  a  reply  to  a  dispatch  of  Mr. 
Fish,  received  on  the  6th,  Lord  Derby  says  "in  the 
the  first  place,  I  must  repeat  that  her  majesty's  gov- 
ernment have  always  maintained  that  it  is  an  essen- 
tial principle  of  extradition  as  permitted  or  prac- 
ticed by  this  country,  that  a  person  surrendered  on 
an  extradition  treaty,  can  be  tried  for  the  offense 
for  which  he  is  surrendered,  and  for  no  other  offense 
previously  committed.  They  have  maintained  and 
must  continue  to  maintain  that  this  is  the  proper 
construction  of  the  treaty  of  1842;  that  it  is  the 
meaning  which  at  the  time,  was  attached  and  which 


UNITED    STATES- (J  k  EAT    BRITAIN.       191 


has  since  continued  to  be  attached  by  this  country 
to  that  treaty,  and  that  it  is  the  meaning^  which 
they  have  understood  was  attached  to  that  treaty 
by  the  government  of  the  United. States." 

After  adverting  to  positions  taken  by  Mr.  Fish 
he  said  that  upon  learning  that  the  proposition  to 
add  a  new  article  was  not  acceptable,  the  British 
minister  at  Washington  was  authorized  to  propose 
a  new  treaty  containing  the  articles  agreed  ppon  in 
the  draft  of  1874,  with  the  addition  of  a  further 
clause  intended  to  meet  an  objection  formerly  made 
by  Mr.  Fish  on  a  question  of  procedure  in  reference 
to  political  offenses,  and  that  it  was  with  sincere  re- 
gret that  he  learned  that  Mr.  F?sh  considered  it  im- 
possible to  negotiate  a  new  treaty  under  the  pres- 
sure of  what  he  looked  upon  as  a  menace  of  the 
violation  of  the  treaty  of  1842;  that  while  conceding 
the  rectitude  of  the  motives  which  actuated  the 
United  States,  he  claimed  that  the  same  construc- 
tion should  be  placed  upon  the  motives  of  her  ma- 
jesty's government;  that  his  government  was  per- 
suaded that  to  continue  to  act  on  the  present  treaty, 
with  the  conflicting  constructions  placed  upon  it, 
would  lead  to  misunderstandings  and  reclamations 
of  the  most  serious  kind;  that,  on  the  other  hand, 
they  would  deeply  deplore  that  the  arrangements 
for  extradition,  which  had  operated  so  long  and  so 
beneficially  between  the  two  countries,  should  be 
suspended  for  any  length  of  time;  and  that  his  gov- 
ernment was  ready  at  any  moment  to  join  that  of 
the  United  States  in  considering  without  prejudice 
the  terms  of  a  new  and,  if  necessary,  an  enlarged  " 
extradition  treaty,  which,  while  protecting  the  right 
of  asylum,  would  afford  no  impunity  to  crime.    25 


192 


POLITICAL    C  ON  T  UO  V  E  R  S I  K  S 


Although  the  extradition  rights  and  duties  of  the 
two  countries  had  been  ably  discussed  in  the  diplo- 
matic correspondence,  the  subject  was  destined  to 
undergo  a  thorough  and  exhaustive  debate  in  the 
house  of  lords. 

In  July,  Earl  Granville,  having  moved  that  an 
address  should  be  presented  to  her  majesty  for  fur- 
ther correspondence  respecting  extradition,  subse- 
quently presented  the  questions  of  fact  and  of  law, 
which  he  considered  applicable  to  the  controversy. 
He  conceded  that  the  negotiations  had  been  con- 
ducted in  a  conciliatory  spirit  by  the  foreign  office, 
and  also,  he  thought,  more  consistently  than  by  Mr. 
Fish,  who,  during  the  course  of  them,  had  with- 
drawn concessions  previously  made,  but  was,  sorry 
to  say  that,  as  regarded  the  execution  of  the  treaty, 
his  government  did  not  stand  as  well  either  as  to 
their  law  or  their  policy.  The  views  advanced  by 
Karl  Granville  and  by  others,  who  were  among  the 
most  eminent  members  of  parliament,  on  the  same 
side,  were  met  on  the  other  side  by  Earl  Derby  and 
Lord  Cairns,  then  Lord  Chancellor,  who,  with  great 
force,  sustained  the  action  and  policy  of  the  govern- 
ment. At  an  adjourned  debate,  the  Lord  Chancel- 
lor quoted  extensively  from  continental  writers,  to 
prove  that  there  is  a  silent  and  implied  condition  in 
extradition;  that  the  crime  must  be  specified  for 
which  the  surrender  is  demanded,  and  that  for  that 
crime  alone,  can  the  extradited  person  be  tried. 

Lord  Selborne,  who  was  principal  law  adviser  of 
the  crown  in  1865,  followed  and  closed  the  debate. 
In  the  course  of  his  remarks,  he  said  he  took  excep- 
tions to  two  expressions  of  his  learned  friend.     "He 


UNTIED    STATES      GREAT     BRITAIN.      193 


Spoke  of  my  noble  friend  (Earl  Granville)  having 
adopted  the  argument  of  the  United  States.  It 
may  be  that  the  view  we  take  is  the  same  with  that 
which  has  been  taken  by  the  United  States,  but  I 
protest  against  it  being  said  that  we  adopt  the  ar- 
guments of  the  United  States.  The  arguments  are 
our  own,  the  interpretation  that  of  the  two  govern- 
ments to  which  we  belonged  and  that  for  which  I 
am  responsible  as  the  principle  law  adviser  for  the 
crown  in  1865.  It  is  our  o\Vn  view,  our  own  inter- 
pretation we  are  justifying,  and  not  the  argument 
of  the  United  States,  and  I  venture  to  think  it  can 
be  shown  informally  to  have  been  the  view  of  the 
British  government,  accepted  by  my  noble  friend 
and  his  colleagues  in  1866,  and  during  their  present 
term  of  oflfice."  He  asserted  that  England  had 
never  recognized  a  priori  international  obligation 
to  grant  extradition  at  all,  and  that  with  them  it 
depended  entirely  upon  treaties.  He  reviewed  the 
argument  of  the  Lord  Chancellor  at  length  and  as 
to  the  political  aspect  of  the  case  said:  "That  he 
admitted  that  there  is  a  good  deal  to  be  said  in  fa- 
vor of  the  argument  as  to  policy  in  the  case  of  po- 
litical offenders.  This  may  or  may  not  be  a  suffi- 
cient reason  for  adhering  to  the  policy  of  the  act  of 
1870.  It  may  or  may  not  be  a  sufficient  reason  for 
doing  that  which  the  legislature  were  not  prepared 
to  urge  upon  the  government  in  1870;  namely,  put 
an  end  to  the  American,  French  and  Danish  treat- 
ies, but  it  cannot  have  the  effect  of  interpolating 
into  those  treaties,  by  reason  of  that  ulterior  conse- 
quence, conditions  which  are  not  there,  nor,  indeed, 
so  far  as  the  understanding  of  the  two  countries   is 


194 


l» O  1. 1  r  I  C  A  I.    C  (> N  I  k  O  V  E  R  S  I  K  S 


concerned,  was  it  necessary  to  do  so,  because  the 
United  States  admit  as  fully  as  we  do.  not  that 
there  is  in  the  words  of  the  treaty  an  implitd  ex- 
ception as  regards  political  offenders,  but  that,  by 
the  understanding  of  most  civilized  nations,  such 
offenders  cannot  be  put  upon  their  trial  after  extra- 
dition for  another  offense.  I  must  say,  however, 
that  if  ever  there  was  a  nation  which  was  entitled 
to  confidence  in  this  respect,  it  is  the  United  States." 
In  support  of  this  assertion,  he  referred  to  the  treat- 
ment extended  by  the  American  government,  after 
the  suppression  of  the  civil  war,  to  those  who  had 
attempted  to  destory  the  union,  and  to  the  facts  dc-^ 
veloped  on  the  trial  of  the  extradited  Hurley,  which, 
indicating  a  political  character,  the  judge  pointed 
out  the  political  complexion  of  the  case  and  summed 
up  decidedly  for  an  acquittal. 

At  the  conclusion  of  his  speech  on  the  25th  of 
July,  Earl  Derby  saia,  in  reference  to  the  future 
course  of  his  government,  that  nobody  was  insensi^ 
bio  to  the  inconvenience  that  would  be  caused  by 
an  even  temporary  suspension  of  extradition,  that 
the  two  countries  have  absolutely  the  same  inter- 
ests, that  the  differences  are  not  of  a  kind  to  be  dif- 
ficult of  arrangement,  that  the  negotiation  fornierly 
interrupted  would  be  at  once  renewed,  and  if  likely 
to  last  some  time,  a  provisional  arrangement  would 
be  aimed  at,  which  shall  prevent  rascals  from  bene- 
fiting by  the  falling  out  of  honest  men. 

On  the  27th  of  October,  the  British  minister  at 
Washington. informed  the  secretary  of  state  that  he 
had  been  instructed  by  Lord  Derby  to  state  that 
**  her  majesty's  government  having  regard  to  the  very 


I)  N  I  r  K I »  s  r  A  r  k  s    t;  r  k  a  r   n  u  rr  a  i  n.    195 


serious  inconvenience,  and  yreat  encouragement  to 
crime*  which  would  arise  from  the  continued  suspen- 
sion of  the  extrsldition  of  criminals,"  was  ready  as  a 
teiDporary  measure,  and  until  a  new  treaty  could  be 
made,  to  enforce  the  surrender  of  criminals  under 
the  treaty  of  1842,  without  asking  for  any  engage- 
ment that  they  should  not  be  tried  for  other  bflfenses 
than  those  for  which  extradition  had  been  demanded 
with  the  understanding  that  either  government 
could  terminate  the  operation  of  the  tenth  article  of 
the  treaty  which  provides  for  the  surrender  of  crim- 
inals, upon  signifying  a  wish  to  do  so. 

On  the  30th  of  the  same  month,  the  American 
secretary  replied  that  the:  president  receiveti  with 
great  satisfaction  the  decision  of  the  British  govern- 
ment, fully  appreciated  the  results  referred  to,  hoped 
her  majesty's  government  would  now  take  into  con- 
sideration the  applications  already  made  for  the  sur- 
render of  VVinslow,  Brent  and  Gray;  and  that  on 
indication  of  a  readiness  to  do  so,  he  would  appoint 
agents  to  receive  them,  and  be  glad  to  respond  to 
any  requisitions  which  should  be  made  under  the 
tenth  article  of  the  treaty  of  1842,  until  such  time  as 
it  should  be  abrogated  in  the  manner  indicated,  or 
until  a  more  comprehensive  arrangement  could  be 
effected  in  regard  to  the  extradition  of  criminals, 
with  an  earnest  desire  on  his  part  for  a  mutually  sat- 
isfactory result. 

The  British  minister  informed  the  American  sec- 
retary on  tile  29th  of  November,  that  he  had  re- 
ceived a  telegram  that  orders  had  been  issued  for 
the  arrest  of  the  three  criminals,  but  that  Lord  Der- 
by thought  that  this  should  be  kept  secret  as  long 


r96 


p  o  L  rr  I  C  A  1,    C  O  N  r  R  O  V  K  I<  S  I  E  S 


as  possible,  lest  they  should  get  notice  and  escape. 
Brent  was  immediately  arrested  and  under-  the 
charge  of  the  American  agent,  sailed  for  the  United 
States  on  the  23rd  of  December.  The  other  two 
criminals  had  not  been  found  at  that  time,  but  being 
informed  on  that  day  by  a  telegram  from  the  Amer- 
ican minister  in  London^  of  the  arrest  and  departure 
of  Brent,  Mr.  Fi.sh  addressed  a  note  to  Sir  Edward 
Thornton^  informing  him  that  he  had  received  infor- 
mation of  the  surrender  of  Brent,  of  the  inability  of 
the  British  government  thus  far  to  secure  the  arrest 
of  the  other  two  criminals,  who  were  either  con- 
cealed in  or  had  escaped  from  Great  Britain,  and  the 
American  representative  in  London  having  informed 
him  of  the  sincere  desire  of  her  majesty's  govern- 
ment to  secure  their  arrest,  that  under  these  circum- 
stances the  President  would  now  be  ready  to  receive 
and  make  requisitions. 

An  almost  uninterrupted  experience  of  the  facil- 
ity with  which  criminals,  guilty  of  grave  offenses, 
now  escape  from  the  dominions  of  the  one  govern- 
ment, and  find  refuge  and  security  in  those  of  the 
other,  indicates  the  great  necessity,  which  exists,  for 
the  enlargement  of  the  schedule  of  crimes  as  referred 
to  by  the  American  Secretary  of  state.  Public  opin- 
ion in  both  countries  is,  undoubtedly,  setting  strong- 
ly in  that  direction,  and  it  is  probable  that  the  time 
is  not  distant  when  embezzlers,  thieves  and  swindlers 
will  no  longer  be  permitted  to  enjoy  their  plunder 
and  defy  justice  nearly  in  the  presence  of  their  de- 
ceived and  despoiled  victims. 


THE  END. 


K  R  R  A  T  A  . 

On  page  24,  read  cruisers  for  ''enemies^ 
On  page  120,  read  eleven  for  "/^//." 

r..^^!l^'^^   '"'  '"'"^^"  ^^  paragragh  so  as  to 
read  the  secretary  of  state  explains. 

On  page  149,  read  repress  for  /-^^^-^^.v. 


